Rome Sand Plains Final Unit Management PlanRome Sand Plains Consolidated Management Plan Page 4 3. Introduce the Karner blue butterfly if lupines are successfully established. 4. Manage

Rome Sand Plains Consolidated Management Plan

March 3, 2006

Electronic copies of this document are available at:www.dec.state.ny.us

Rome Sand Plains Consolidated Management Plan Page 2

PREFACE

This document is a consolidated management plan for approximately 3,875acres of public and conservancy owned land within a 16,000 acre UniqueNatural Area in the city of Rome, Oneida County, New York known as theRome Sand Plains (RSP). The RSP is an unusual area of mixed wetlands andupland pine barrens developed in fossil sand dunes. The RSP is one of onlya handful of inland pine barrens in the nation. Its combination of high sanddunes and low peat bogs make it a truly unique natural feature. The habitatis characterized by mixed northern hardwood and pine barren forestsopening abruptly into meadows, wetlands and peat bogs. Several rarevegetative community types are contained within the RSP which includerare and uncommon species such as the frosted elfin butterfly, the spottedturtle and the Red-shouldered Hawk. In addition, the RSP encompassespart of the historic Wood Creek, used by Native Americans and EarlyAmerican settlers as a major waterway route linking the Mohawk River andthe Great Lakes.

The lands for which this plan has been prepared are owned by four entities:The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC),Oneida County, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the Izaak WaltonLeague (IWL). Private property is interspersed with these lands; however theplan does not apply to such private property. The purpose of the plan is toprovide a guide for the coordinated management of lands among theproperty owners listed above. The plan has been prepared to meet therequirements of the NYSDEC’s unit management planning process, as wellas the needs of the other landowners. It is also intended to serve as acomponent of the City of Rome comprehensive plan.

With respect to the specific requirements of the NYSDEC, who will use thisdocument as its unit management plan, it is the policy of the Departmentto manage State lands for multiple benefits to serve the people of New YorkState. This unit management plan is the first step in carrying out thatpolicy. The plan has been developed to address management activities onthis unit for the next ten years, with a review due in five years. Somemanagement recommendations may extend beyond the ten-year period.Factors such as budget constraints, wood product markets, and foresthealth problems may necessitate deviations from the scheduledmanagement activities.

The overall vision for the RSP is to maintain and enhance its uniqueecology, especially the pitch pine heath barrens ecosystem. This ecosystemis vulnerable from both natural and human induced forces. The plantherefore contains a variety of recommendations to protect the RSP fromdegradation. The plan further recommends that the current management


structure, an ad hoc partnership consisting of the public and conservancylandowners and a cross-section of interest partners be maintained for thenext five years. The success of this structure in achieving the goals of theplan should be monitored to determine if it is effective or if an alternativestructure is necessary.

The other major management recommendations of this plan are as follows.

Land Management Recommendations

1. Acquire or protect sufficient lands to maintain the ecologicalviability of the RSP. Lands should only be acquired fromwilling sellers, and if they meet certain criteria set forth indetail in the plan. These values relate to ecology,consolidation, linkages, buffers, natural resource limitationsand cultural or historical resources.

2. Limit roadside vegetation cutting except where necessary forhealth and safety or other management objectives.

3. Engage in regular roadside clean-up activities.4. Clean up trash and debris from properties where a health

hazard or aesthetic impact is present.5. Designate a historic corridor for 500 feet on either side of Wood

Creek.

Public Use Recommendations

1. Develop a foot trail system in the RSP and link it to other trailsin the region.

2. Develop a bicycle trail system in the RSP and link it to regionaltrails.

3. Develop public access to Wood Creek.4. Allow hunting, fishing and trapping in accordance with State

regulations and the policies of the public and conservancylandowners.

5. Prohibit use by motorized vehicles and by livestock.

Ecological Management

1. Engage in experiments to compare the effectiveness ofvegetative management activities to maintain the pitch pineheath barrens community, including selective cutting,scarification, herbicide use and prescribed burn methods.

2. Manage lupines to provide for habitat for the frosted elfinbutterfly and for the potential future establishment of theKarner blue butterfly.


3. Introduce the Karner blue butterfly if lupines are successfullyestablished.

4. Manage nuisance wildlife through trapping only whennecessary to protect private property or public trails and roads.

5. Conduct a variety of research activities to better understandthe natural processes at work in the RSP.

Education and Interpretation Recommendations

1. Develop interpretation of the Wood Creek canal cut.2. Conduct cultural resource investigations at several locations

that have been identified as having a higher than averagepossibility of having been Native American campsites.

3. Engage in a variety of education and publicity activities toinform the public about the RSP, including mobile educationaldisplays.

4. Create a repository for information about the RSP.

Administration Recommendations

1. Install a uniform signage system.2. Mark the boundaries of the RSP with uniform RSP signage in

addition to signage required by NYSDEC on its lands.3. Resolve boundary encroachment issues.4. Develop partnerships with private property owners,

environmental and conservation organizations, the Albany PineBush Commission and local schools and colleges to assist withall aspects of managing the RSP.

5. Adopt regulations on State lands prohibiting horses, overnightcamping and the discharge of firearms in proximity to all trailheads.

6. Designate Trailless Areas in which no facilities will bedeveloped.


PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 91.1 Location and Area Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9

1.1.1 NYSDEC Holdings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 101.1.2 Nature Conservancy Holdings . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 101.1.3 Izaak Walton League Holdings . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 101.1.4 Oneida County Holdings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 101.1.5 Easements

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 111.2 History of the Rome Sand Plains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 111.3 Generic History of State Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 131.4 Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 141.5 Planning Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 14

1.5.1 Description of Management Team . . . . . . . . . Page 141.5.2 Planning Activities to Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 151.5.3 Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 16

2.0 RESOURCE OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 182.1 Physical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18

2.1.1 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 182.1.2 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 192.1.3 Hydrogeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 192.1.4 Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 202.1.5 Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 202.1.6 Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 21

2.2 Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 222.2.1 Ecological Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 232.2.2 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 262.2.3 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 292.2.4 Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 322.2.5 Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 34

2.3 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 342.4 Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 352.5 Man-made Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 36

2.5.1 Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 362.5.2 Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 382.5.3 Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 382.5.4 Historic Canal Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 392.5.5 Signage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 402.5.6 Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 402.5.7 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 40

2.6 Land Use Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 41


2.7 Adjoining Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 43

3.0 PUBLIC USE AND CAPACITY TO WITHSTAND USE . . . . . . Page 433.1 Indirect Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 433.2 Scientific and Research Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 443.3 Education Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 443.4 Recreation Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 453.5 Capacity to Withstand Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 46

4.0 MANAGEMENT AND POLICY OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 474.1 Current Management Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 474.2 Landowner Management Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 48

4.2.1 NYSDEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 484.2.2 The Nature Conservancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 504.2.3 Izaak Walton League . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 514.2.4 Oneida County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 52

4.3 State Agency Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 524.3.1 NYSDEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 524.3.2 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and

Historic Preservation (OPRHP) . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 564.4 Federal Agency Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 57

4.4.1 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 574.4.2 Federal Emergency Management Agency . . . . Page 57

4.5 City of Rome Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 58

5.0 MANAGEMENT ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 595.1 Information Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 605.2 Ecological Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 625.3 Wildlife Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 645.4 Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 655.5 Cultural and Historic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 675.6 Education and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 685.7 Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 685.8 Land Use and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 695.9 Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 70

6.0 GOALS OF THE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 726.1 Land Management Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 736.2 Ecological Management Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 736.3 Public Use Management Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 746.4 Education and Interpretation Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 756.5 Administration Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 75

7.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 767.1 Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 76


7.2 Trailless Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 807.3 Non-Motorized Trail System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 817.4 Water Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 837.5 Vegetation Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 847.6 Lupine Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 867.7 Karner Blue Butterfly Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 867.8 Nuisance Wildlife Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 867.9 Hunting and Trapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 867.10 Red-shouldered Hawk Nest Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 867.11 Research Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 877.12 Motorized Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 877.13 Signage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 877.14 Roadside Cutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 877.15 Roadside Clean-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 877.16 Property Clean-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 887.17 Wood Creek Historic Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 887.18 Canal Cut Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 887.19 Cultural Resource Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 887.20 Mark Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 887.21 Education and Publicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 887.22 Develop Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 897.23 Adopt Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 897.24 Development Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 907.25 Management Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 90

GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 92

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 95

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Location MapFigure 2 Public and Conservancy OwnershipFigure 3 Dune LocationsFigure 4 SoilFigure 5 TopographyFigure 6 Major Water ResourcesFigure 7 WetlandsFigure 8 Vegetation CommunitiesFigure 9 NYSDEC Lands Forest Cover TypesFigure 10 Currently Marked TrailsFigure 11 Land Use PatternsFigure 12 ZoningFigure 13 NYSDEC Forest Management AreasFigure 14 Physical Plan Recommendations


Figure 15 Trailless Areas

List of Tables

Table 1 Wetlands Classification and AcreageTable 2 Historically Reported Rare Plant Species in the Rome

Sands PlainsTable 3 Special Concern, Threatened or Endangered Fauna of

the Rome Sand PlainsTable 4 Fish of the Rome Sand PlainsTable 5 Rome Sand Plains RoadsTable 6 Current Parking FacilitiesTable 7 Land Use PatternsTable 7 NYSDEC Lands by Classification, Acreage and Size

Distribution

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Stakeholder Interview SummariesAPPENDIX B: SCS Soil DescriptionsAPPENDIX C: FloraAPPENDIX D: FaunaAPPENDIX E: Deer Harvest DataAPPENDIX F: Furbearer Harvest DataAPPENDIX G: Fisheries SurveysAPPENDIX H: Stage 1A Cultural Resources ReportAPPENDIX I: PhotographsAPPENDIX J: SignageAPPENDIX K: City of Rome Zoning RegulationsAPPENDIX L: Wood Creek Canal InformationAPPENDIX M: Water Quality StandardsAPPENDIX N: NYSDEC Custodial PlanAPPENDIX O: Forest Stand Cover Type LegendAPPENDIX P: ADA GuidelinesAPPENDIX Q: NYSDEC Lands Budget and Schedule of ActionsAPPENDIX R: Responsiveness Summary


1.0 INTRODUCTION

The RSP is an approximately 16,000 acre area of mixed wetlands andupland pine barrens developed in fossil sand dunes in and around the cityof Rome, Oneida County, New York. It is one of only a handful of inlandpine barrens in the nation. Its combination of high sand dunes and low peatbogs make it a truly unique natural feature. The habitat is characterized bymixed northern hardwood and pine barren forests opening abruptly intomeadows, wetlands and peat bogs. Several rare vegetative community typesare contained within the RSP which include rare and uncommon speciessuch as the frosted elfin butterfly, the spotted turtle and the Red-shouldered Hawk. In addition, the RSP encompasses part of the historicWood Creek, used by Native Americans and Early American settlers as amajor waterway route linking the Mohawk River and the Great Lakes. Thisdocument is a consolidated management plan for approximately 3,875acres in the city of Rome constituting the core of the RSP that remains asa largely undeveloped natural area.

Among the RSP’s unusual qualities are its ownership characteristics, whichinclude ownership of approximately 25% of the RSP by four public andprivate conservation-oriented groups: Oneida County, NYSDEC, TNC, andthe IWL. These groups have been managing their lands in cooperation withone another through an informal management team. The purpose of thisdocument is to create a formal plan for the coordinated long-termmanagement of the lands in the RSP owned by the above entities. The planhas been prepared to meet the requirements of the NYSDEC’s unitmanagement planning process, as well as the needs of the otherlandowners. It is also intended to serve as a component of the City ofRome’s comprehensive plan.

1.1 Location and Area Description

Figure 1, “Location Map” illustrates the location of the RSP. For thepurposes of this plan, the RSP encompasses approximately 3,875acres of public and conservancy owned land within a 16,000 acrenatural area in the city of Rome, located immediately to the west ofthe city’s inner district. The RSP is bounded on the south by WoodCreek and NYS Rts. 46 and 49, on the north and west by the Romemunicipal boundary, and on the east by West Thomas Street andGifford Road. It should be noted that the RSP as a geological featureextends somewhat beyond the bounds of the study area covered bythis plan, encompassing approximately 15,000 acres. Outside of thestudy area for which this plan has been prepared, the sand plainshave been considerably fragmented and degraded by development


patterns.

The RSP’s geologic origins date to the end of the last ice age when thisarea stood on the receding shores of ancient Lake Iroquois. This lakeencompassed much of what is now Central New York, forming theMohawk River as it drained into the Hudson. Windblown sand thataccumulated as the glaciers melted formed high dunes with low areasthat have become peat bogs. The dunes now support a pine barrensecology normally found in sandy soils like those in coastal areas.Interspersed are northern hardwoods and transitional open meadows.The mosaic of habitats caused by the area’s unique geology make ita diverse ecological resource. Additionally, the RSP is rich in culturalresources centered on Wood Creek, which figured prominently in theactivities of the Iroquois Nation, the early transportation history ofthe United States and the American Revolution.

1.1.1 NYSDEC Holdings

Lands owned by the NYSDEC are located on Figure 2, “Public andConservancy Ownership.” The NYSDEC owns approximately1,700 acres in the RSP. All of the NYSDEC’s lands are classifiedas Unique Natural Areas. This has certain managementimplications (see Section 4 of this plan). The NYSDEC’s holdingsin the RSP are concentrated in the south center of the unitaround Hogsback and Oswego roads. NYSDEC lands currentlysupport two of the areas three major developed trails, the DunesTrail and the Wood Creek Trail.

1.1.2 Nature Conservancy Holdings

Lands owned by TNC are located on Figure 2. TNC ownsapproximately 965 acres in the RSP concentrated in the center ofthe unit around Oswego Road. TNC’s holdings include some ofthe most ecologically significant areas, including several rarewetland and barrens communities.

1.1.3 Izaak Walton League Holdings

Lands owned by the IWL are located on Figure 2. The IWL’sholdings encompass 440 acres along the eastern boundary of theRSP. The IWL property encompasses the Pitch Pine Bog and isdeveloped with nature trails.

1.1.4 Oneida County Holdings


Lands owned by Oneida County are located on Figure 2. Thecounty’s holdings encompass approximately 770 acres in thewestern end of the RSP. The county’s lands are managed forforestry purposes and include substantial wetlands. The county’sproperty includes a fire training tower, as well as a formerhistorical roadway from Wood Creek to Teelins Pond.

1.1.5 Easements

Easements apply to several parcels in the RSP.

The existing New York Central and Hudson railroad bed thattraverses the RSP is part of the Oneida County snowmobile trailsystem. Each fall, snowmobile clubs secure easements from thelandowner, secure insurance for the trails, mark trails withribbons, and then groom and maintain the trails through thewinter. In the spring, club volunteers remove the markings andfences, and make any repairs. The snowmobile trail systemscease to exist in the spring when the seasonal easements expire.Therefore at this time it is illegal for other use to be made of therailroad bed once the snowmobile season has ended. The use ofthe railroad bed for snowmobiling is renewed annually. Theremay also be another smaller portion of the official trail system onthe northwest corner of the RSP, but this is not entirely clear. Parcel 204.000-2-2 in the RSP is privately held. A deed covenantallowing public access applies to the back acreage of this parcel.

1.2 History of the Rome Sand Plains

Pine barrens are relatively uncommon ecosystems that are home tounusual and rare plant and animal species. The exact origins of theRSP ecosystem are not perfectly understood. Based on analysis offossil sediment and pollen samples, it is believed that during theperiod from 5,000 to 500 years ago the RSP was an environmentdominated by a mesophytic deciduous-coniferous forest in whichthere was relatively little fire. The pitch pine community on the RSPis not believed to have originated until about 500 years ago, and mayhave originated more recently. It is generally believed that the pinebarrens developed in relatively recent times due to disturbancesassociated with fire, perhaps due to Native American hunting orclearing activities, and subsequently from both fire and land clearingactivities associated with agriculture and logging. With the cessationof these disturbances in the past 50 years, the RSP is succeeding toa more mesic community. This has important managementimplications since certain rare, threatened and endangered species


are associated with the pine barrens community.

The recorded human history of the RSP begins with accounts of theuse of Wood Creek as a Native American, and subsequently amilitary, settler and trade travel route connecting the Mohawk Riverwith Oneida Lake and points west. Fort Stanwix was constructed toprotect the short carry between the Mohawk River and Wood Creek.Until the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825, Wood Creek was atransportation route of national significance, and attempts were madebetween 1790 and 1820 to straighten the creek and construct locksin order to improve passage. The remains of these activities are stillvisible and constitute an important resource of the RSP.

During the 19 and first half of the 20 centuries the RSP appears toth th

have been lightly developed with farms; however, the sandy soils andprevalence of wetlands minimized this use. Other human usesincluded logging and nature centered uses such as hunting and berrypicking. The construction of the New York Central and HudsonRailroad through the RSP in the mid-19 century resulted in ath

number of fires, influencing the vegetation composition of the RSP.Fire frequency decreased with the switch to diesel trains in the mid-20 century and subsequently the abandonment of the railroadth

tracks in 1975.

The unique flora and fauna of the RSP was recognized in publishedreports from local birding groups as far back as 1960. In the 1970s,both the NYSDEC and the Oneida County EnvironmentalManagement Council began to take note of the sand plains. In 1980,in part in response to a spate of mining permit applications thatthreatened to destroy the ecology and geology of the RSP, theNYSDEC began planning to acquire lands in the sand plains. Between1985 and 1987, the NYSDEC acquired 597 acres in the RSP. TNC andthe IWL also recognized the unique character and importance of theRSP and subsequently began acquiring property.

During the 1990s, the central and western New York chapters of TNC,NYSDEC, the City of Rome, Oneida County, the IWL and privatecitizens began efforts to conserve and protect the RSP. These groupsbanded together to form the RSP Management Team in January,1997. In October 1997, the RSP Resource Management Area wasformally dedicated. Land acquisition efforts by the IWL, TNC and theNYSDEC have been ongoing, the latter funded by money from the1996 Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act and the New York StateEnvironmental Protection Fund.


1.3 Generic History of State Forests

The term State Forest is applied to all of the State-owned lands,including unique and natural areas, that lie outside of the boundariesof the Adirondack and Catskill parks that are administered by theNYSDEC’s Division of Lands and Forests.

The forestlands outside the Adirondack and Catskill regions owe theirpresent character, in large part, to the impact of pioneer settlement.Following the close of the Revolutionary War, increased pressure forland encouraged expansion. Up to 91% of New York’s woodlands werecleared for cultivation and forage.

Early farming efforts met with limited success. As the less fertile soilsproved unproductive, they were abandoned and settlement wasattempted elsewhere. The stage of succession was set and new forestsof young saplings reoccupied the ground once cleared.

The State Reforestation Law of 1929 and the Hewitt Amendment of1931 set forth the legislation which authorized the NYSDEC toacquire land by gift or purchase for reforestation areas. These StateForests, consisting of not less than 500 acres of contiguous land,were to be forever devoted to “reforestation and the establishmentand maintenance thereon of forests for watershed protection, theproduction of timber, and for recreation and kindred purposes.” Thisbroad program is presently authorized under Article 9, Title 5 of theEnvironmental Conservation Law.

In 1930, Forest Districts were established and the tasks of landacquisition and reforestation were started. In 1933, the CivilianConservation Corps (CCC) was begun. Thousands of young men wereassigned to plant millions of trees on the newly acquired State lands.In addition to tree planting, these men were engaged in road and trailbuilding, erosion control, watershed restoration, forest protection andother projects.

During the war years of 1941-1945, very little was accomplished onthe State lands. Plans for further planting, construction, facilitymaintenance and similar tasks had to be curtailed. However, throughthe postwar funding, conservation projects once again receivedneeded attention.

The Park and Recreation Land Acquisition Act of 1960, theEnvironmental Quality Bond Acts of 1972 and 1986, the 1993Environmental Protection Act and the 1996 Clean Air Clean Water


Bond Act contained provisions for the acquisition of State lands.These lands would serve multiple purposes involving the conservationand development of natural resources, including the preservation ofscenic areas, watershed protection, forest management andrecreation.

Today there are nearly 700,000 acres of State Forest land throughoutthe State. The use of these lands for a variety of purposes such astimber production, hiking, skiing, fishing, trapping and hunting is oftremendous importance economically and to the health and well-being of the people of New York State.

1.4 Access

The RSP is easily accessible by a network of local and county roads,as illustrated by Figure 1. Humaston Road, Hogsback Road, OswegoRoad and State Rts. 46 and 49 provide major east/west access.Tannery Road, Lauther Road, and Rt. 69 provide major north/southaccess. An abandoned, privately owned New York Central andHudson River Railroad bed bisects the RSP from southeast tonorthwest and provides seasonal access to snowmobiles. Access tothe managed lands of the RSP from the east is through the IWLproperty via Thomas Street.

1.5 Planning Activities

1.5.1 Description of Management Team

Interest in creating a management structure for lands beingacquired by the TNC and the NYSDEC began in the mid-1990s.Several informal meetings among interested parties were held in1995 and 1996. In 1997 the parties formalized their structureand the RSP Management Team was created. The managementteam is a voluntary organization of landowners and interestedparties who recognized that they had common interests withrespect to the management of the RSP. The management teamformed to explore common areas of interest and to developcommon strategies for the management of RSP lands. In 1999 themanagement team determined that a consolidated managementplan was required to set forth a unified and coordinated plan ofaction for activities in the RSP.

The core organizational members of the management team are asfollows:


C City of RomeC IWLC NYSDECC Oneida CountyC The Nature Conservancy

Other members of the team who do not have a direct ownershipof lands managed in this plan, but have conservation, recreationor other interests related to the RSP include the following:

C Adirondack Mountain ClubC Fifth District, Garden Clubs of New York StateC Mohawk Valley Heritage Corridor CommissionC New York Parks and Conservation AssociationC New York Rivers UnitedC New York State Canal CorporationC New York State Department of TransportationC New York State MuseumC Old Erie Audubon SocietyC Oneida County Environmental Management and Water

Quality CouncilC Oneida County Federated SportsmenC Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management AuthorityC Private LandownersC Region 6 Open Space Advisory CommitteeC Rome Area Chamber of CommerceC Rome Country ClubC Rome Historical SocietyC The Nature Club of Central New YorkC The Oneida Indian NationC West Rome Riders, Inc.C Trailbusters Snowmobile Club

1.5.2 Planning Activities to Date

In 1997 the management team adopted a formal Statement ofPurpose, which has guided its activities up to the preparation ofthis plan. The Statement of Purpose and accompanyingmanagement principles remain a useful statement of this plan’smanagement philosophy and so it is presented here.

The RSP is a unique area with many public values. The valueswhich should be maintained, protected and enhanced are:

C The ecological characteristics of the pine barrens area, including


the associated wetlands;C The geological characteristics of the glacial era sand dune

formations;C The historic characteristics of the area, particularly the Wood

Creek corridor, a connecting passageway between the MohawkRiver drainage and the Great Lakes in colonial and pre-colonialtimes;

C Recreational and educational opportunities in a wildland settingnear a metropolitan area.

Management principles that should be followed are:

C Manage the area cooperatively; shared ownership createsshared interest and involvement;

C Maintain, protect and enhance the critical ecological, geologicaland historical values while providing recreational opportunitieswherever they are compatible with protection of these values;and

C Increase public awareness and understanding of the area.

In 2000 the management team began developing an outline for aconsolidated management plan. In 2001 the Herkimer/Oneidacounties comprehensive planning program obtained a grant fromthe United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in theamount of $50,000 for preparation of the management plan. Thisgrant was matched with a $20,000 grant from the NYSDEC andin-kind contributions from many agencies, resulting in the teamhiring a consultant to assist with preparation of the plan. In thesummer of 2001, the Chazen Companies was hired to work withthe management team in the preparation of this plan.

1.5.3 Planning Process

Preparation of the plan began in the summer of 2001 andcontinued through the spring of 2002. Integral to thedevelopment of the plan was an extensive public input processthat included public meetings held in September 2001 and June2003. Additionally, more than 15 interviews were held withstakeholders who had a particular interest or knowledge in theRSP. The results of these interviews are found in Appendix B,“Stakeholder Interview Summaries.”

The development of this plan followed a formal planning processconsisting of the following steps.


C Inventory and Analysis. The planning team was able to relyon a great deal of information that had been collectedprior to beginning this plan. Additional informationgathering was conducted with respect to land use, visualresources and limited fauna surveys.

C Public Input. An extensive public participation process wasconducted. The process included the creation of anewsletter mailed to all landowners in the RSP. Thenewsletter included an invitation to attend a publicmeeting held on September 10, 2001. Additionally,interviews were held with more than 15 individualstakeholders who are not a part of the formal managementteam.

C Issues Identification. Issues were identified through thepublic participation process, review and analysis ofinventory data and discussion among the members of themanagement team. The planning consultant prepared aseries of white papers that helped define RSP issues.

C Develop Goals and Objectives. Based on the results of theprevious steps, a series of formal goals and objectives weredeveloped. The goals and objectives set forth a policyframework for managing the RSP.

C Develop Management Proposals. Formal managementproposals were developed to address the issues identified,consistent with the policy framework set forth by the goalsand objectives. A schedule was created for theseproposals.

C Prepare Draft Plan and Draft Environmental ImpactStatement. The draft plan was subject to public review,including a meeting to which all RSP study arealandowners were invited.

C Prepare Final Plan and Final Environmental ImpactStatement.

The plan was prepared in the form of a draft environmentalimpact statement to facilitate SEQRA compliance. A draft planwas released on June 2, 2003. An informational public meetingwas held on June 23, 2003. The plan was completed by themanagement team on November 24, 2003.


Subsequent to approval of the plan by the management team, theNYSDEC will adopt the plan through a formal sign-off by theCommissioner. It is anticipated that Oneida County, the City ofRome, the IWL and TNC will also adopt the plan according totheir own internal procedures.

2.0 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

This section of the plan provides an overview of the physical, biological,historic, visual and man-made resources that collectively compose the RSP.Throughout this section, the terms “RSP,” “Rome Sand Plains” and “thesand plains” are used to refer to the geological and natural feature as awhole. The terms study area and managed lands are used to refer to thatcore portion of the RSP which is being managed through the creation of thisplan.

2.1 Physical Resources

2.1.1 Geology

The RSP are an accumulation of sand, 10 to 15 meters inmaximum thickness, underlain by glacio-lacustrine deposits ofglacial Lake Iroquois, that in turn overlie glacial till from earlierice advances. Beneath this mantle of glacial deposits aresedimentary layers of silt stone and shale of Ordovician Age(approximately 450 million years before present).

The sand plains feature the remains of fossil sand dunes whichare typically expressed as east-west trending topographic highpoints. The dunes were primarily formed by prevailing westerlywinds that transported well sorted, angular, fine sand grains. Thesand had accumulated along the shallow shores of glacial LakeIroquois during the end of the Wisconsin glaciation. When thelake water drained out to the St. Lawrence Valley, thesesediments were reworked by prevailing winds blowing over thesparsely vegetated terrain.

The dunes themselves have a crescent shape and consist of wellsorted, fine grain sand. Some of the dunes in and around thesand plains have been mined, destroying them both as a geologicfeature and as a unique habitat. Based on a review of aerialphotography and topographic mapping, the major dunes withinthe study area have been located on Figure 3, “Dune Locations.”The remaining intact dunes are concentrated around HogsbackRoad where at least six are present.


Also present along Rt. 49 are a series of eskers formed bydeposits of sand and gravel by sub-glacial streams. Of particularnote is the presence of a bifurcated, or forked esker, also ageologic rarity.

2.1.2 Soils

The ecology of the RSP is partly attributable to the juxtapositionof greatly differing soil types immediately adjacent to one another.Dune soils consist of arid, relatively unproductive sand soilswhile much of the lowlands adjacent consist of peat or othersaturated soils, resulting in wetlands.

Figure 4, “Soils” illustrates Soil Conservation Service mapping forthe study area. The dunes and sandy uplands are dominated bythe Windsor Soil Series. The Windsor series consists of deep,excessively well drained soils. Portions of the wetlands aredominated by the Saugatuck and Wareham soil series, whichconsist of waterlogged sands. The Palms and Carlisle series aremuck soils that are also found in low lying wet areas.

Appendix C contains soil descriptions for the soil types in thestudy area.

2.1.3 Hydrogeology

The RSP are generally underlain by relatively thick (25-50 feet)layers of saturated sediments yielding up to 50-200 gallons perminute when developed for wells. The saturated sediments aregenerally sand and gravel or swamp deposits. The details oflocalized water flow are not well understood, but it is thought thatgroundwater generally flows toward the Mohawk River and theNew York State Canal System. The sand plains are located on adrainage divide between the westward flowing Wood Creek andthe eastward flowing Mohawk River, and they are at the easternedge of the Oneida/Seneca/Oswego drainage basin.

As stated above, since little is known about localized groundwaterflow, it is unknown how construction associated with the railroadbed or roadways may affect the hydrology of the RSP. Propertymanagers have indicated they have observed no trends withrespect to areas growing wetter or dryer, which may beattributable to the relatively large amount of water that appearsto underlie the RSP.


2.1.4 Topography

Figure 5, “Topography” illustrates topography in the study area.Relief is minimal, ranging from a low point of about 511’ abovemean sea level (msl) to a high point of about 546’ above msl. Lowpoints are wetlands and bogs while high points are the tops ofdunes.

2.1.5 Water Resources

Figure 6 “Water Resources” illustrates water resources in thestudy area. The RSP lies within the drainage basin of OneidaLake. Waters flow south to Wood Creek and then west to FishCreek and Oneida Lake. A discussion of water quality standardsis found in Appendix N. Water resources are summarized asfollows.

Approximately six miles of Fish Creek form the northwest borderof the study area. Fish Creek and the adjacent ponds have waterquality standards of C within the study area. Waters classified asClass C have fish propagation as their highest and best use.

Approximately 11.45 miles of Wood Creek form the southernborder of the study area. Wood Creek flows west to Fish Creek,which it joins outside of the study area. Wood Creek has a waterquality standard of C(t) from its mouth to approximately the mid-point of the study area Waters classified as Class C(t) are suitablefor fish propagation. From this mid-point, Wood Creek has awater quality standard of D until it reaches the eastern boundaryof the study area. Waters classified as D are suitable for fishingand other non-contact uses.

Tributaries of Wood Creek within the study area are BrandyBrook, Burk Creek, Canada Creek, Beaver Brook and SashFactory Creek. A portion of Beaver Creek, a tributary of FishCreek, lies within the study area. All of these tributaries are ratedNYSDEC Class C or Class C(t) streams.

There are several small ponds within the study area, the mostprominent of which is Teelins Pond located adjacent to State Rt.49.

Floodplains within the study area are illustrated on Figure 6. The100-year floodplain is the flood elevation that has a 1% chanceof being equaled or exceeded each year. Certain restrictions apply


to activities within the 100-year floodplain, as discussed inSection 4 of this plan.

2.1.6 Wetlands

Figure 7 illustrates State classified and regulated wetlands withinthe study area. As illustrated by this figure, wetlands areextensive within the study area and make up 7,359 acres, or 46percent of the study area. 66.3 % of the public/conservancylands are wetlands. By owner, the percentages of wetlands are asfollows.

C Izaak Walton League 89.2% wetlandsC The Nature Conservancy72.5% wetlandsC State of New York 63.4% wetlandsC Oneida County 52.0% wetlands

State regulated wetlands in the study area are numbered andclassified as follows.


Class I wetlands are the highest classification; Class IV are the lowest.1

Table 1 Wetlands Classification and Area1

SB-18 II 18.4

SB-19 II 15.1

SB-28 II 1748.9

SB-35 II 9.0

VE-1 IV 35.7

VE-2 II 2126.3

VE-3 I 2329.8

VE-4 II 14.2

VE-6 IV 16.5

VE-8 II 883.5

VE-9 II 10.8

VE-10 IV 11.5

VE-11 IV 16.5

LC-44 II 9.8

LC-47 II 77.1

LC-48 II 0.1

LC-50 II 21.3

LC-51 IV 13.5

In addition to those regulated by the State, wetlands in the RSP arealso mapped by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) andregulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The boundariesof such wetlands have not been mapped in the field, but they arelikely to be similar in extent to those mapped by the NYSDEC.

Wetlands are one of the major resources of the RSP, providingimportant habitats to diverse flora and fauna. Details aboutindividual wetland types are found in Section 2.2.1 below.

2.2 Biological Resources


2.2.1 Ecological Communities

The RSP is unique in its juxtaposition of ecological communities.Within a relatively small area there exist elements of northernbogs, mixed northern hardwood and pine barrens forests. Thebogs are of noteworthy size and diversity, while the pine barrensare some of the only such communities developed on wind blownsand dunes in the United States. The RSP has been accuratelydescribed as a mosaic, in which diverse habitats are found inclose proximity to one another. This diversity of habitats withina relatively small area results in a wide variety of flora and fauna,some of which is rare or unusual for this region. This mosaic isbest illustrated by Figure 8, “Vegetation Communities.”

There are eight community types within the study area recognizedby the Natural Heritage Program (NHP) and TNC, some of whichare considered as unique or rare. These community types arelocated on Figure 8 and are described as follows. Descriptions arebased on Reschke (1990) as modified by TNC and localinvestigation (see the references section of this plan).

Pitch Pine Heath Barrens is the signature community for whichthe RSP is known. This community is also referred to as PitchPine Blueberry Heath Barren. It is a shrub-savanna communityoccurring on the well-drained sand dune uplands. Pitch pine(Pinus rigida) is the dominant tree in this community; there is amix of other tree species. Shrubs are dominated by heaths or byscrub oaks (Quercus ilicifolia). This community hosts the wildblue lupine (Lupinus perennis) which is the major food source forthe frosted elfin butterfly (Incisalia irus) as well as the Karner bluebutterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) which is a State andFederally- listed endangered species. Tree percent cover isgenerally between 30% and 60%. It is also of interest that pitchpine is also found in certain of the RSP’s bogs. Pitch pine isintolerant of shade and will not reproduce under canopy; henceit is limited to sites with relatively poor soils that will not supportother species. Pitch pine cones may or may not be serotinous (i.e.requiring fire to reproduce) depending on the fire history of theindividual community. The fire history of the RSP is not wellunderstood and therefore it is unknown what role fire has withrespect to this community. However, as fire favors pitch pine atthe expense of other species, it is probable that fire hascontributed to the overall health and maintenance of thiscommunity, if not also its reproductive success. It is likely thatfires associated initially with lightning and Native American


activity and subsequently with farming, logging and the railroadpassing through the RSP have contributed to the health of thiscommunity. Fires within the RSP have been actively suppressedsince the 1950s, and this may have a long-term effect on thehealth of this community, as it appears to be succeeding to amore mesic assemblage of species.

Pitch Pine--Blueberry Peat Swamp is the community typeassociated with the Huckleberry Swamp, a large wetland locatedbetween the abandoned railroad line and Humaston Road. It isalso found in depressions between the sand dunes. This rareecotype is developed on deposits of Wareham sands which arehydric but slightly more aerobic than the Saugatuck sands. Theshrub layer is dense and dominant. Typical species include blackchokeberry (Aronia), wild raisin (Viburnum) and highbushblueberry (Vaccinium). Gray birch (Betula populifolia), and pitchpine are also present. The ground covers include brackenfern(Pteridium), wintergreen (Gaultheria), wild lily-of-the-valley(Maianthemum), trailing arbutus (Epigea) (which occurs in dryareas) and bulrush (Scirpus). It is not known how construction ofthe railroad through the RSP in the mid-1800s affected drainagepatterns in the Huckleberry Swamp. Blocking of the drainageculverts beneath the railroad berm has caused some flooding atthe southern end of the swamp directly north of the railroad, butit is not known what the effects, if any, are throughout theswamp.

Pine Barrens Vernal Pond is a wetland type located north ofHogsback Road and in between the various sand dunes. Thesewetlands may also grade into and/or be classified as Dwarf ShrubBogs. The Cranberry Bog owned by the IWL is an example of adwarf shrub bog. The distinctions between the two wetland typeshave not been well studied within the RSP. Within the RSP, twosub-communities have been identified under pine barrens vernalpond: 1) Sphagnum/Chamaedaphne (open boggy wetlands)dominated by Sphagnum spp., leather leaf (Chamaedaphnecalyculata) and threeway sedge (Dulichium arundinaceum); and 2)Acer/Vaccinium/Sphagnum (shady wetlands) dominated by redmaple (Acer rubrum), highbush blueberry (Vacciniumcorymbosum), chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa), mountain holly(Nemopanthus mucronatus), cinnamon fern (Osmundacinnamomea) and Sphagnum spp. These wetlands have fluctuatingwater levels that reflect fluctuations in the groundwater table,which in some cases is perched. Some of the ponds have an opencanopy and are boggy, while others have a partial canopy of red


maple or pitch pine and a mix of other hardwoods, withVaccinium corymbosum, Aronia, Nemopanthus and Viburnum ascommon shrubs and a Sphagnum-dominated groundlayer withferns, sedges and scattered forbs. The soil is peat or muck. Morework is needed to classify properly this wetland type within theRSP.

The Black Spruce--Tamarack Bog community is a small strip offorest about 20 meters wide between a high bush association notfar from the base of a dune and a dwarf shrub bog being invadedby white pine, pitch pine, tamarack and black spruce. The watertable in this bog is close to the surface. The entire substrate ismade up of Sphagnum grading to peat. Quaking is noticeable atthe edges. Black spruce grows on the bog edge while tamarackgrows in the wetter interior. Although black spruce is semi-serotinous, fire is likely to alter significantly the composition ofthis community. There is no evidence of this community typehaving experienced fire.

The Highbush Blueberry Bog Thicket is a wetland community onthe north side of Hogsback Road. It is a part of a large mosaic ofother wetland and upland communities such as AppalachianOak-Pine Forest and Pitch Pine Heath Barrens. Additional surveywork is needed on this community.

The Rich Hemlock--Hardwood Peat Swamp community is alsolocated on the north side of Hogsback Road. It is a mosaic ofwetlands with seasonally fluctuating water levels, in swalesbetween higher elevation sand dunes vegetated with pine barrensor pine-oak woods. This community type forms a part of anextensive mosaic of swamps, dunes and vernal ponds.

The Hemlock--Hardwood Swamp community is located on thesouth side of Hogsback Road. It is situated in a basin andalthough small, has a high quality and diversity of vegetation.

The Red Maple--Hardwood Swamp community is located betweenHogsback and Oswego Roads. This is a fairly large red mapleswamp bounded to the west by a smaller but more maturehemlock-hardwood swamp. Additional survey work is needed onthis community.

In addition to the rare community types described above, theAppalachian Oak-Pine Forest community type is foundinterspersed throughout the RSP. Although this is a common


community, its occurrence as part of the mosaic with the othercommunity types increases the diversity and richness of theRSP’s ecology. This community is a mixed forest that occurs onsandy soils. A mixture of oaks and pines dominates the canopy.The oaks include one or more of the following: black oak (Quercusvelutina), chestnut oak (Q. montana), red oak (Q. rubra), white oak(Q. alba), and scarlet oak (Q. coccinea). The pines are either whitepine (Pinus strobus), or pitch pine; in some stands both pines arepresent. Red maple (Acer rubrum), hemlock (Tsuga canadensis),beech (Fagus grandifolia), and black cherry (Prunus serotina) arecommon associates occurring at low densities. The shrub layer ispredominantly ericaceous, usually with blueberries (Vacciniumangustifolium, V. pallidum) and black huckleberry (Gaylussaciabaccata). The ground layer is relatively sparse and speciesdiversity is low.

In addition to the distinct ecological communities above, severalother habitat types are interspersed throughout the RSP, againcontributing to diversity. Of particular note are the floodplain ofWood Creek and the sand dunes. Other habitat types in the RSPinclude:

C Successional old fieldsC AgricultureC Hardwood plantationC Softwood plantationC Yards and lawnsC Brushy cleared areasC Sand mineC LandfillC Roads and mowed areasC Water

It should also be noted that all of the community types describedherein grade into one another; the edges are often indistinct.

2.2.2 VegetationThe vegetative communities of the RSP are described in Section2.2.1 above. A comprehensive flora list is found in Appendix D.Combining the results of numerous surveys and sources hasderived the comprehensive list. The flora in the RSP is believed tohave been well surveyed. However, as noted above, not allcommunities have been thoroughly studied.

Of note is the presence of the blue lupine (Lupinus perennis) a


species that provides the sole food source for the frosted elfinbutterfly (Incisalia irus) and would provide food for the Karnerblue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) if introduced. The bluelupine is found in the pitch pine heath barrens in the vicinity ofHogsback Road. Efforts began in 1999 to grow this plant in sanddune areas around Hogsback Road in order to expand foodsources and potential habitat for the Karner blue butterfly. In2001 approximately 2,500-3,000 seeds were planted on parcels220.000-1-19, 220.000-2-37 and 220.000-2-38.1, both atexisting and new sites.

There is one State-listed rare, threatened or endangered plantspecies in the RSP. Location of this species is on file with the RSPManagement Team as well as the NYSDEC, but it is not providedin this plan in order to protect the resource. The species isclimbing fern (Lygodiumpalmatum) with a global rank of G4and a State rank of S1.

In addition, there are historic records of ten rare plant species inthe RSP. They are as follows.


Table 2 Historically Reported Rare Plant Species in the Rome SandPlains

Species Common Name GlobalRank

State Rank

Cypripediumarietinum

Ram’s-head lady’sslipper

G3 S2

Panicumscabriusculum

Panic grass G4 S1

Triphoratrianthophora

Nodding Pogonia G4 S1

Carex formosa Handsome Sedge G4 S2S3

Calypso bulbosa Calypso Orchid G5 SH

Potamogetonalpinus

Northern Pondweed G5 S2

Carex tenuiflora Sparse-floweredSedge

G5 S1

Desmodium ciliare Little-leaf tick-trefoil G5 S2S3

Triglochinpalustre

Marsh Arrow Grass G5 S2S3

Platantheraciliaris

Orange FringedOrchid

G5 S1

G3 means the species is either rare and local throughout its range, or vulnerable to extinction

throughout its range because of other factors .

G4 means that the species is apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its

range.

G5 means the species is demonstrably secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its

range.

S1 means there are five or fewer occurrences and very few remaining individuals in the State.

S2 means that there are 6-20 occurrences in the State and few remaining individuals .

S3 means there are 21 to 100 occurrences in the State.

SH means the species is historically known in the State, but has not been seen for the last 15

years.

Also of note is the presence of unusual species such as severalorchids, pitcher plant and sundew in various RSP bogs. Otherspecies of note include pitch pine, scrub oak, tamarack, roseshellazalea, sphagnum moss, cinnamon fern, cranberry, blueberry,trailing arbutus and viburnum.


The NYSDEC maps the vegetation communities on the lands itowns. Figure 9 illustrates forest cover types as mapped by theNYSDEC. Appendix P provides a key for Figure 9.

2.2.3 Wildlife

Numerous researchers have carried out a variety of faunasurveys. A comprehensive fauna list is found in Appendix E. It isbelieved that birds (including breeding birds), large and smallmammals and insects (especially butterflies and wasps) havebeen well studied. Bird surveys have been particularly thoroughdue to the efforts of volunteer bird watchers. Survey work forreptiles and amphibians was carried out in the spring of 2002 byThe Chazen Companies. Relatively few species were found. Theresults are presented in Appendix E.

There are five State-listed special concern, threatened orendangered species in the RSP. The locations of these species areon file with the RSP Management Team, but are not provided inthis plan in order to protect the species. Table 3 lists thesespecies.


Table 3 Special Concern, Threatened or Endangered Fauna of the RomeSand Plains

Species Common Name GlobalRank

StateRank

Incisalia irus Frosted elfin G4 S1S3

Zanclognathamartha

A noctuid moth G4 S1

Lithophane thaxteri A noctuid moth G4 S2

Gomphus fraternus Midland Clubtail G5 S1S3

Buteo lineatus Red-shoulderedHawk

G4 S3

Clemmys guttata Spotted turtle G4 S3

Clemmys insculpta Wood turtle G4 S3

Ambystomamaculatum

Spotted salamander G4 S3

G4 means that the species is apparently secure globally, though it may bequite rare in parts of its range.G5 means the species is demonstrably secure globally, though it may bequite rare in parts of its range.S1 means there are five or fewer occurrences and very few remainingindividuals in the State.S2 means that there are 6-20 occurrences in the State and few remainingindividuals.S3 means there are 21 to 100 occurrences in the State.

Of particular note in the RSP is the number of species ofLepidoptera (butterflies). A 1995 survey recorded 219 species ofLepidoptera in the RSP. Also of note is the large number ofsolitary sand wasps. Sixty-three species have been identified inthe RSP.

The NYSDEC maintains records of deer and furbearer harvest bytownship (i.e. the records are not maintained specifically for theRSP, but rather, for the City of Rome within which the RSP lies,as well as the surrounding towns). Deer harvest data is


summarized in Appendix F. These data clearly show that from1980 to 2000 the deer harvest has steadily increased in all thetownships surrounding the Sand plains. It can be inferred thatthis trend has followed within the RSP, a conclusion that issupported by anecdotal evidence that hunting pressures haveincreased in recent years. The Huckleberry Swamp is known tobe a significant deer wintering area.

With respect to furbearers, only certain species require a fur seal.Records are again kept by county and town. These data aresummarized in Appendix G. The data do not appear to show anylong-term trend, with harvests varying significantly from year toyear (a trend which is often attributed to market forces).Anecdotal evidence suggests that fur trapping does take place inthe RSP on lands on which it is allowed.

With respect to birds, a significant diversity of raptors and neo-tropical migrants breed in the RSP. In recent years flooding ofsome areas by beaver have developed habitat for waterfowl andwater birds. Succession has probably reduced habitat for opencountry species such as Vesper Sparrow and Eastern Meadowlarkduring the last 30 years.

Of note is the probable former presence of the Karner bluebutterfly, a state and federally listed endangered species. The RSPare thought to have once supported the Karner blue butterfly.Since the RSP has the potential to support a population of bluelupine, the New York State Karner Blue Recovery Team hasselected the RSP as a potential future introduction site for theKarner blue. In addition, the Federal Draft Karner Blue ButterflyRecovery Plan designates the RSP as a Potential recovery Unit.Potential recovery units are areas in which the Karner blue likelyoccurred historically and in which sufficient restorable andsuitable habitat occurs that could potentially support a viablemetapopulation of the species. It has not yet been conclusivelydetermined what constitutes the minimum habitat area that willbe required to maintain a self-supporting population of Karnerblues. Viable Karner blue populations are found in relativelysmall areas of habitat in New York State and elsewhere.

Also of note is a small population of the frosted elfin butterfly.This butterfly has habits similar to the Karner blue butterfly. TheBlue lupine is the critical food plant for the larval plant of thisbutterfly. As an adult, the frosted elfin feeds on nectaring plantssuch as fireweed and blue lupine. The Frosted elfin has been


observed to use open areas such as paths and trails as travelcorridors.

2.2.4 Fisheries

Fisheries surveys in the RSP were conducted by the NYSDEC inthe fall of 2001. The results are found in Appendix H andsummarized in Table 4. The results show the presence of warmwater species, including game fish such as large mouth bass,bullhead, grass pickerel and sunfish in Wood Creek, itstributaries and other streams in the RSP. Additionally, a fewbrook trout were found in Wood Creek, Sash Factory Creek andseveral tributary streams. All of the fish specimens were relativelysmall. These data support the conclusion that the RSP is hometo a healthy and diverse population of fish (and likely amphibiansand other food chain species as well). According to NYSDECfisheries personnel, within the bounds of the RSP, Wood Creekitself is too warm to support a viable reproducing population ofbrook trout.


Table 4 Fish of the Rome Sand Plains

Common Name Scientific Name

Blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus

Blackside darter Percina maculata

Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis

Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus

Brown trout Salmo trutta

Common sucker Catostomuscommersoni

Creek chub Semotilusatromaculatus

Fallfish Semotilus corporalis

Fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare

Golden shiner Notemigonuscrysoleucas

Grass pickerel Esox americanus

Hornyhead chub Nocomis biguttatus

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides

Mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi

Central Mudminnow Umbra Limi

Pumpkinseed sunfish Lepomis gibbosus

Rock bass Amblopites rupestris

Roseyface shiner Notropis rubellus

Small mouth bass Micropterus dolomieui

Tesselated darter Etheostoma olmstedi

Chain pickerel Esox niger

There are historic accounts of the presence of Landlocked AtlanticSalmon (Salmo salar - more appropriately, the freshwater or lakesalmon, since these Great Lakes fish did not migrate to the sea)


in Fish Creek. Restoration of this population has been underdiscussion by local sportsmen and conservation groups, but nodefinitive plans have been adopted as of the date of preparationof this plan. Note that Wood Creek is not suitable for salmonreintroduction.

Limited kick sampling of the stream benthos has been conductedby the NYSDEC around the study area, but there are no recordsfrom streams within the area currently available.

2.2.5 Forestry

Oneida County’s holdings in the study area are managed as partof Oneida County Reforestation Area 24. The county acquired theproperty in 1981 at tax auction. The county logs the land inaccordance with market demand. White pine is the most valuedspecies in the area. White oak, soft maple, cherry and hemlockare lower quality species. Red oak was cut heavily in the 70’s andthe current stand is not yet of harvestable size.

NYSDEC forest management practices will be used to accomplishmultiple objectives such as habitat enhancement and protectionas well as forest crop production. This usually involves selectivethinning of trees. The NYSDEC’s forestry management plan isdetailed in Section 4.2.1.

The TNC and the IWL have not developed forestry managementplans for their properties.

2.3 Cultural Resources

A Stage 1A Archaeological/Historical Sensitivity Evaluation wascompleted for the study area by Greenhouse Consultants, Inc. Thisstudy follows a formal methodology established by the New York StateOffice of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. A copy of thisreport is found in Appendix I.

With respect to prehistoric resources, a portion of one site thought tobe an aboriginal camp has been reported from Brandy Brook withinthe study area. No other information is available concerning this site.Four other prehistoric sites have been reported within two miles ofthe study area. The relative lack of sites may be attributable to thefact that no systematic surveys have been conducted, or because thepresence of wet areas precluded the development of significant sites.Nevertheless, according to the Stage 1A report, any locations within


the study area that are relatively elevated near streams or marshesare considered to have a higher than average likelihood of containingprehistoric remains associated with hunting or fishing camps. Thelocations with the highest likelihood of containing prehistoricresources are the confluences of Beaver Creek and Canada Creek,Canada Creek and Wood Creek and Beaver Brook and Wood Creek.

With respect to historic resources, the Wood Creek corridor is an areaof significant sensitivity. Prior to the development of the Erie Canal,Wood Creek was a major thoroughfare along the transportation routefrom Albany to the Great Lakes. Wood Creek and the carry to theMohawk were the site of military forts during both the French andIndian War and the Revolutionary War. None of the forts appear tohave been located directly within the study area. In the 1790s thefirst private canal company in New York, the Western Inland LockNavigation Company, built 13 short canals along necks of WoodCreek to enhance navigation. Three of these canals lie within thestudy area, and remnants can still be seen. Additional informationabout the canals is found in Appendix M.

With respect to historic sites, nine such sites are located within oradjacent to the study area. Within the study area are the canal cutsnoted above, and a settlement known as Seiferts Corners, whichincludes a former tavern and a dam on Wood Creek constructed toraise the water level. Perhaps the most important nearby site isformer Fort Rickey located opposite Wood Creek to the south of thestudy area.

2.4 Visual Resources

The RSP as an area of low relief and mostly wooded landscapes offerssmall scale views of subtle beauty. Within its landscape of woods andsmall meadows are several areas identified by the Management teamas having special scenic character These include:

C Hogsback RoadC Oswego RoadC Humaston RoadC Portions of NYS Rt. 69C NYS Rt. 49 in the vicinity of Teelins Pond

Each of these areas has a particular character tied to the relationshipof vegetation and open space. Obviously, maintenance of thesecharacteristics will be important if visual qualities are to bemaintained. Appendix J contains photographs illustrating the visual


character of the scenic areas listed above.

In addition to the roads, much of the interior trail system provideswonderful scenery, with views of ponds, wetlands and interestingflora and fauna.

2.5 Man-made Facilities

2.5.1 Roads

Public roads in the study area are illustrated in Figure 1. As thisfigure illustrates, numerous roads, totaling 32.31 miles passthrough the study area. There are two State Forest haul roads inthe study area. An approximately one mile haul road follows thebed of Armstrong Road. An approximately 1,000 foot haul road islocated on parcel 220.000-2-24.

Haul roads are permanent, unpaved roads but are not designedfor all weather travel. They are constructed primarily for theremoval of forest products and provide only limited access withinthe unit. As such, these roads may not be open for public use.The standards for these roads are those of Class C roads asprovided for in the NYSDEC Forest Road Handbook.

Table 5 summarizes roads by name, ownership and length.


Table 5 Rome Sand Plains Roads

Name Owner Length inMiles

Beck Road City 1.34

Fish Creek Landing Road City 1.49

Gore Road City 1.29

Hogsback Road City 2.35

Humaston Road City 2.57

Lauther Road City 1.83

Link Road City 1.95

Meadows Road City 0.54

New London Road County 0.24

Oswego Road County 4.40

Passer Road City 1.95

Rome-New London Road (State

Rt. 46)

State 1.61

Rome-Taberg Road (State Rt.69)

State 4.4

State Rt. 49 State 2.24

Success Drive City 0.78

Tannery Road City 1.87

Thomas Road City 0.36

Upper W. Thomas Street City 0.33

Wexford Road City 0.47

White Road City 0.14

Wuethrich Road City 0.16

Roads provide excellent access to most of the study area. To someextent they tend to fragment habitats; however ecological unitswithin the RSP are so small as to render this not a major


problem.

2.5.2 Parking

There are three public parking facilities currently located in thestudy area, each associated with a public trail (see Section 2.5.3below). None of them are paved or otherwise marked; bouldersand landscaping generally delineate the limit of the areas. Thefollowing table summarizes the approximate number of spaces atthese facilities.

Table 6 Current Parking Facilities

Facility Approximate Number ofSpaces

Pitch Pine Bog Trail 10

Wood Creek Trail 4

Sand Dune Trail 15

Informal, unmarked parking areas have been created by use atthe point where Humaston Road intersects with the abandonedrailroad bed.

2.5.3 Trails

There are three marked trails in the RSP. Trail registers arelocated at the start of each trail. The locations of the markedtrails are illustrated in Figure 10, Trails. Based on informalobservation, none of the trails meet current ADA guidelines foraccessibility to the disabled.

The IWL maintains approximately 3.5 miles of trail in severalloops on its Pitch Pine Bog property. The trails pass through amixture of bog, pitch pine and upland forest habitats. Theproperty contains one of the largest beaver ponds in New YorkState.

The NYSDEC maintains two public trails on its lands. Both trailsare accessed from Hogsback Road. The Wood Creek Trail is a 1.22mile (round trip) trail (with a short 0.16 mile loop extension)portions of which are along the crest of a sand dune to the bankof Wood Creek. Portions of this trail do not have a treadway; butrather, utilize a raised string that hikers are asked to follow. This


is to prevent treading on and damaging the fragile sand duneenvironment that supports Blue lupines. The trail provides accessthrough a variety of forest cover from pitch pine and barrenareas, through tall white pine, hemlock and oak to the shrubbyfloodplain of Wood Creek.

The Sand Dune Trail is a 0.71 mile loop trail that starts at aformer sand mining pit. The trail provides an excellent view ofwhat a dune looks like in cross section.

The former New York Central and Hudson railroad bed bisectingthe RSP from west to east is privately owned. The owners haveallowed access along the railroad bed through an areasnowmobile club for snowmobiles. At the present time this is theonly legal access to the bed. However, it is apparent that peopleroutinely walk on and otherwise use the railroad bed.

The former Rome-Osceola railroad bed is found to the west of theIWL property. This railroad bed is also privately owned. There isno public access to it at the present time.

The New York State Barge Canal Recreationway lies less than onemile south of the study area. Portions of the railroad bed,Humaston Road, Lauther Road, Hogsback Road and NYS Rt. 49within the study area have been proposed for inclusion in OneidaCounty’s bicycle trail system by the Herkimer-Oneida countiestransportation study.

The New York State Canalway Trail lies ½ mile south of the studyarea. This trail goes from the Old Erie Canal Village to Syracuse.

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) isplanning to construct a bicycle trail in the shoulder of State Rts.46/49 from the Canal Village to Rt. 69.

In addition to these marked trails, a network of inactive loggingroads provides informal access to much of the interior of the RSP.TNC has surveyed these trails using a global positioning system(GPS) and mapped 35 miles of informal trails. Many of these trailsare associated with old logging roads and have been maintainedby use.

2.5.4 Historic Canal Structures

In the summer of 1793 the Western Inland Lock Navigation


Company began cutting 13 short “canals” across the necks of theworst of the sharp meanders in Wood Creek, thus shortening thedistance between Rome and Oneida Lake by six miles. Remainsof these historic “mini-canals” are located along Wood Creekupstream of its crossing of Rt. 49. Detailed information aboutthese canals is found in Appendix M.

In close proximity to the study area are various historicstructures associated with the old Erie Canal and the New YorkState Canal System, both located within a mile to the south.

2.5.5 Signage

In 2001 the RSP Management Team placed an informational signat the Wood Creek Trailhead. The sign is an attractive two-panelcolor model that provides information about the RSP. The firstpanel is entitled “Rome Sand plains” and describes how the areawas formed 10,000 years ago and the unique features of the site.The second panel is entitled “Wood Creek” and includes mapsand narratives on the use of this creek 200 years ago as a link inthe network of inland waterways from Albany to the Great Lakes.Reproductions of the sign panels are found in Appendix K. Thissign provides a successful model for other RSP signage.

The individual landowners who are part of the management teameach post their own boundaries with their own unique markers.

2.5.6 Infrastructure

There are no other types of infrastructure to support public usein the study area (e.g. outhouses, bicycle racks, etc.).

The RSP is generally unserved with water or sewer infrastructure.The nearest such infrastructure is located at the Rome Industrialand Business Park on State rt. 69 just west of the intersection ofState Rts. 46 and 49. The City of Rome does not currently haveplans to extend municipal infrastructure to the study area.

Private electric and telecommunications infrastructure is locatedalong roadways throughout the RSP.

2.5.7 Other

The former City of Rome Municipal Landfill and Oneida Herkimer


Solid Waste Management Authority Ash Landfill is located off ofTannery Road within the bounds of the study area. Neither ofthese landfills is currently active. The ash landfill was closed andcapped in 1997. Monitoring wells are in place and a leachatecollection system directs leachate directly to the municipal sewer.The municipal landfill is surrounded by a slurry wall that collectsleachate. Therefore, these facilities are not considered to be athreat to the RSP.

2.6 Land Use Patterns

Land use patterns in the study area as derived from real property taxrecords are illustrated by Figure 11, Land Use Patterns. The mostprevalent land use category is unoccupied land (5,570 acres or 35%of the RSP) followed by public and conservation lands (3,974 acres or25% of the RSP), residential lands (2,686 acres or 17% of the RSP)and agriculture (1,609 acres or 10% of the RSP).

The following table illustrates the number of parcels and total acreageof each land use category.


Table 7 Land Use Patterns

Land Use Numberof

Parcels

Total Acreage

Percentage ofTotal Area

Agricultural 32 1,609 10.13%

Residential 356 2,686 16.92%

Unoccupied 233 5,570 35.08%

Commercial 38 348 2.19%

Recreation/Entertainment

6 282 1.78%

Community Services 9 33 0.21%

Industrial 7 110 1.75%

Public Services 4 274 1.73%

Conservation Lands 53 3,974 25.03%

No Property ClassAssigned

53 990 6.24%

Totals 767 15,876

The total 2002 assessed value of the RSP is $77,448,702. Land usevalues in the RSP are concentrated in the commercial and residentialsectors. Commercial lands make up only 2.19% of the land area inthe RSP, but have a total assessed value of approximately $31.7million. Residential lands make up about 17% of the land area andhave a total assessed value of approximately $20.7 million. Bycontrast, unoccupied lands account for about 35% of the RSP buthave a total assessed value of only about $3 million. Unoccupied landrepresents 3.6% of the total assessed value of the RSP.

The NYSDEC maintains an inventory of land uses within its holdingsaccording to specific categories required by the unit managementplanning process. The inventory of “land uses” is really an inventoryof vegetative types and stages and is presented in Table 8.

Table 8 NYSDEC Lands By Classification, Acreage and Size Distribution


Acres By Size Class

0-5" 6-11' 12"+Non-

ForestTotals % of

Totals

Natural Forest

Hardwood 76 162 9 247 14

Mixed 5 297 390 692 40

Softwood 4 545 44 593 35

Softwood 1 1 <1

Open land/Brushy 51 51 3

Wetland 109 109 6

Pond 1 1 <1

Roads Parking 14 14 <1

Total Acres 85 1004 444 175 1708

2.7 Adjoining Uses

Uses adjacent and nearby the study area are summarized as follows.

To the east and southeast is the urbanized city of Rome. To the north,west and south are rural and suburban areas characterized by low-density housing and occasionally commercial uses, agriculture, forestand open space lands. The study area is bordered on the south byWood Creek and on the northwest by Fish Creek. A significantrecreation resource, the New York State Barge Canal, liesapproximately one mile south of the study area. The Erie CanalVillage, a tourist attraction, lies immediately to the east, as does FortBull. Other nearby features of interest include Fort Stanwix in thecity of Rome.

3.0 PUBLIC USE AND CAPACITY TO WITHSTAND USE

This section of the plan describes the various uses of the RSP and thepotential impacts of such use.

3.1 Indirect Use

Indirect use refers to those people who may never set foot in the RSPbut who derive satisfaction from knowing that such areas exist. Suchindividuals derive value from knowing that they, their children and


future generations may have the opportunity to enjoy the resourcesin the RSP. There is no way to quantify the value of this use, but itundoubtedly exists.

3.2 Scientific and Research Use

The RSP is used for a variety of research purposes. Research hasfocused on inventorying the flora and fauna of the RSP, including on-going studies to determine the breeding bird populations, todetermine Red-shouldered Hawk use, to determine the status oflupines and their use by various insects, especially frosted elfins, andto determine the feasibility of using the RSP as a recovery location forthe Karner blue butterfly.

In addition, research has been examining the successional processeson this site. Specifically, research has examined the fire history of theRSP in order to better understand its origins and ecologicalprocesses. The results of this work have been compared to researchfrom other pine barrens communities in New York State in anattempt to determine the best management strategies for the area.Others have been researching the geologic and hydrogeologic linksbetween the aquifer and wetlands in the RSP.

There is also significant ongoing archeological and historic research.

The primary researchers in the RSP are affiliated with TNC, The StateUniversity of New York College of Environmental Science andForestry, Hamilton College, Rutgers University, Colgate University,Utica College and the New York State Museum.

3.3 Education Use

The RSP is used for educational purposes, primarily by local highschool and college teachers who use it as an outdoor classroom andlaboratory. No formal curriculum has been developed, although somecollege teachers have established research locations (i.e.,groundwater monitoring wells or plant plots) in the area.

Adjacent landowners, the general public, elected and othergovernment officials and others are being educated about the RSPthrough the RSP Management Team newsletter, articles in localnewspapers about the ongoing efforts of the RSP Management Team,and through the outreach efforts of members of the RSP ManagementTeam.


Stories have been published for specific interests, such as birdingarticles, articles in the TNC newsletter, and history articles in regionalnewspapers. In addition, the TNC has developed a slide show aboutthe RSP. Brochures are also available for the NYSDEC and IWLproperties, with distribution through local Chambers of Commerceand other venues. In addition, the RSP Management Team, TNC andthe IWL have hosted field walks in the RSP. Volunteers have beenenlisted to clean up trash and plant lupines. Elected and othergovernment officials have been involved in the process throughmailings, on-site tours and outreach efforts of the RSP ManagementTeam.

3.4 Recreation Use

The primary human use of the RSP is undoubtedly as a recreationarea. Although trailhead registers have been installed at the threepublic trails, not all people register and the registers at the State-owned trail heads have not been in place long enough to generatemeaningful numerical results.

The IWL, whose property is the most heavily used, has collectedregister data since 1994. From 1994 to 2001 an average of 471 usershave registered annually. Note that a registered user may include aparty of more than one person; party size data has not been recorded.The data show a number of clubs and organizations using theproperty.

A review of register data at the Sand Dunes Trailhead for the periodfrom April 20, 2001 to July 20, 2001 and from April 2002 to August2002, showed 143 individual registrations (0.52 entries/day) andtotal reported visitation of 165 (1.2 persons/day). Of interest is thatalmost all parties reported only one or two persons; there were onlythree large parties (more than ten people) reported during this period,two of which were recorded as nature clubs and one as a group ofteachers.

Register data at the Wood Creek Trailhead for the period from April2002 through August 2002 showed 82 individual registrations(0.53/day) and total reported visitation of 153 persons (1.1persons/day). Only one party of ten or more was recorded in thisregister.

Review of the limited available register data and discussion withproperty owners and managers who are active participants in themanagement team and review of register comments leads to the


following observations with respect to use.

Use of the RSP is almost entirely limited to day use due to theabsence of formal camping areas. Users fall into three majorcategories: hikers and nature watchers, hunters and trappers andsnowmobilers.

Hikers and day users generally take short walks in the RSP forexercise, bird watching or other nature centered activities. Theduration of these activities is relatively short, on the order of severalhours. Group size is relatively small, usually one or two people. Fewpeople bring pets. Most of this activity occurs during the warmweather months.

Hunting and trapping activity occurs during the fall. Hunters andtrappers primarily use NYSDEC, TNC and county-owned lands. TheIWL reports increased hunting pressure on its lands in recent years.These observations are consistent with data showing an increaseddeer take from the region over the last ten years.

Snowmobilers use the abandoned railroad bed as a right-of-way(ROW). During the winter months, use of this corridor is frequent.

Wood Creek is lightly used by canoeists. There is also light use byfishermen of Wood Creek and its tributaries.

In addition, it is likely that the RSP is used for uses such as berryand mushroom collecting. The extent to which these activities occuron RSP lands is unknown.

The roads traversing the RSP are used for bicycling and walkingpurposes.

Although not allowed on NYSDEC, IWL or TNC lands, ATVs makesignificant use of portions of the RSP. There are ongoing trespassproblems with respect to ATV use. This is a significant problembecause ATVs can severely damage the fragile dune and wetlandenvironments that make up much of the RSP. Also, ATV use isincompatible with certain types of recreation uses prevalent in theRSP such as bird watching and hunting.

3.5 Capacity to Withstand Use

To date, problems associated with use have been relatively few. Minorsign and tree vandalism have been reported. Illegal dumping of


garbage and construction/demolition debris occasionally occurs.These types of problems are found in any area subject to public useand will require ongoing management activity including posting, roadclosures and patrols. Similarly, property managers occasionallyreceive reports of illegal hunting, ATV use or overnight parties on RSPlands. These are handled on a case-by-case basis by contacting theappropriate authority, including the NYSDEC Forest Ranger assignedto the RSP, or the local Environmental Conservation Police Officer.

Several issues present more significant challenges to the long-termhealth of the RSP.

First is the issue of ATV use and trespass. ATVs have the potential tosignificantly damage the fragile plant communities and dune andwetland environments of the RSP. Prohibiting or managing ATV useis necessary to prevent such damage and to ensure compatiblerecreation uses.

Similarly, certain of the environments within the RSP are so fragile asto render any sort of formal public access problematic. Primeexamples are the sphagnum bogs and the Huckleberry Swamp whoseplant life can be damaged if walked upon. This also holds true ofsome of the sand dune environments that have almost no soil andlittle plant life stabilizing them. Even light use of these areas has thepotential to destroy the habitat. Thus, use must be managed toensure that trails and other forms of access do not adversely affectsensitive areas.

4.0 MANAGEMENT AND POLICY OVERVIEW

This section of the plan presents an overview of the management activitiesthat are currently undertaken in the study area, as well as the policies thatguide such activities.

4.1 Current Management Activities

The RSP Management Team and the individual property owners havealready undertaken a number of management activities. Many ofthese activities are ongoing. They are summarized as follows.

C Developed trails and associated signs, registers and parkingareas on the IWL and at two locations on NYSDEC properties.

C Developed two trail brochures.C Developed an interpretive sign at the Wood Creek trailhead.


C Engaged in a number of public education and outreachactivities, including nature walks.

C Germinated, planted and nurtured blue lupine seeds.C Cleaned up trash and garbage at various locations.C Conducted inventories of flora and fauna.C Conducted a GPS inventory of trails.C Cooperated with research on a variety of topics related to the

health of the RSP.

4.2 Landowner Management Policies

4.2.1 NYSDEC

Management activities on State-owned land are governed byspecific rules and regulations, which are set forth in Section 4.3below. In 1997 the NYSDEC prepared a “Custodial Plan for theRSP” an internal document summarizing its managementapproach to the RSP. A copy of this document is found inAppendix O. This document has guided NYSDEC’s actions up tothe date of preparation of this plan. The NYSDEC’s approach isas follows.

Ownership Interest

NYSDEC originally sought to purchase sufficient acreage in theRSP to provide for an ecologically viable preserve. As otherorganizations became involved in the sand plains, NYSDEC beganacquiring property in consultation and cooperation with them.597 acres had been acquired by 1983. Acquisition activities werethen halted until the Environmental Protection Fund and theClean Water/Clean Air Act provided funding for additional landpurchases. To date, approximately 1,700 acres have beenacquired using funds from the 1972 and 1986 EnvironmentalQuality Bond Acts, the 1996 Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act,the Environmental Protection Fund and other sources. TheNYSDEC intends to continue to purchase lands to protect theRSP’s unique geological formations and habitats.

The NYSDEC does not currently undertake fire management inthe RSP and participates in putting out any fire.

The following goals, needs and challenges are taken directly fromNYSDEC’s custodial plan.

Management Goals.


1. Preserve areas of geologic significance, specifically sand dunes.2. Preserve ecologically significant areas, especially the bog and

other wetland areas. Areas identified as habitat for rare orendangered plants or animals should also be protected frominfluences that would alter the habitat.

3. Wood Creek should be maintained as near as possible in itsoriginal form, while allowing canoeing.

4. Maintain Pitch Pine Cover Type. Unmanaged hardwood speciesmay encroach and eventually take over the site. Use ofprescribed fire in maintaining pitch pine habitat should befurther investigated.

5. Increase public awareness of the sand plains. Use existingroads and develop additional trails that will encompass thearea’s unique features. Avoid putting trails in sensitive areas.Develop trail brochure. Increase understanding of thesignificance of the sand plains.

Needs and Challenges

1. Continue to acquire, from willing sellers, additional land whenfunding allows and land becomes available.

2. Investigate, identify and compile a list of plants and animalspeculiar to the Sand plains. Include rare or endangered species.

3. Management of Pitch Pine Forest Type. Need for prescribed fireand the chances for successful establishment of pitch pineshould be investigated. At the present time the Rome FireDepartment does not allow the use of prescribed fire as a toolfor forest management. NYSDEC should work with Rome FireDepartment toward gaining acceptance of the use of fire toachieve forestry objectives. Treat small blocks of pine atintervals.

4. Gate the existing wood roads throughout the sand plains toprevent vehicular access. This will also help to reduce dumping.

5. Identify common goals with other landowners.6. Encourage efforts by volunteer groups: cleaning, identifying rare

and endangered flora and fauna, trail layout and maintenance.7. Survey and mark property lines.

Forestry

The NYSDEC has developed specific forestry objectives for itsholdings in the RSP. Forest management practices will be used toaccomplish the goals listed above such as habitat enhancement andprotection and to maintain the existing ecological communities.


Thinning and harvesting will be conducted and forest products willbe removed to maintain desirable growth and stand densities, tosalvage losses from insects, disease and destructive weatheroccurrences and to prepare mature stands for establishment of newstands. Forestry areas are illustrated by Figure 13, NYSDEC ForestManagement Areas. Note that these objectives should also bethought of as specific management objectives and are thereforeoutlined in Section 7.5 of this plan.

4.2.2 The Nature Conservancy

The RSP emerged as a priority action site in the Great Lakes Plainecoregion for TNC. TNC manages its lands through an interimplan prepared in 1998.

TNC’s interim management plan contains several goals. Thesegoals are to:

1. Maintain the mosaic of a number of state-rare natural areasincluding the Pitch Pine-Blueberry Peat Swamp, the PineBarrens Vernal Pond, the Dwarf Shrub Bog, the Black SpruceTamarack Bog, the Pitch Pine Heath Barrens within a healthymatrix of Appalachian Oak Pine Forest.

2. Provide long-term maintenance of rare species including thefrosted elfin and Red-shouldered Hawk.

3. Provide for persistence of natural communities including RichHemlock Hardwood Peat Swamp and Highbush Blueberry BogThicket.

4. Provide for persistence of viable breeding populations of neo-tropical migrant birds currently occurring within the RSP.

5. Connect the RSP to other natural areas.

To achieve these goals TNC has developed a five-pronged managementapproach, to include land protection, research, restoration,management and education. This approach is summarized as follows.

C Research: Fill information gaps necessary to good long-termmanagement of protected lands.

C Restoration: Reverse the successional shift that is eliminatingopen habitats for the frosted elfin. Use experimental managementof small areas to promote open areas for the persistence ofFrosted elfin. TNC will also advocate maintenance of the PitchPine Heath Barrens Community (a small component of the overallsite) through prescribed fire management.

C Management: TNC intends to continue to hold and manage the


Huckleberry Swamp area. Such use would not allow the use ofvehicles or the presence of pets. The Conservancy will seek tofoster a coordinated approach to management of other landswithin the RSP area that includes recreational uses on State-owned land. TNC seeks to communicate, cooperate, and developsupportive relationships with other members of the RSPManagement Team and the City of Rome.

C Education and Outreach: TNC seeks to form a supportive userconstituency throughout the local area. Education will be multi-modal. It will be coordinated through the RSP ResourceManagement Team and will focus on the Frosted elfin, the lupine,and the ecological history of the sand plains.

The hunting policy of TNC at the RSP is based on TNC’s nationalpolicy adapted to fit local needs. The primary purpose of thismanagement effort is to maintain the ecological viability ofecosystems by controlling species that significantly alter balances ofnatural communities. Persons are allowed to hunt on TNC lands toachieve control of overabundant species. In addition TNC recognizesthat hunting is a part of the human culture. At RSP white-tailed deermay be hunted by permit. Proof of liability insurance is required andhunters are asked to volunteer for 1-2 days of work on the propertyduring the non-hunting season.

4.2.3 Izaak Walton League

The mission of the IWL is to maintain, protect and restore thesoil, forest, water and other natural resources of the UnitedStates and other lands; to promote means and opportunities forthe education of the public with respect to such resources andtheir enjoyment and wholesome utilization. The Rome, NYChapter of the IWLA, formed in 1946, has secured over 400 acresof RSP land that is now protected for the public interest.

The IWL manages its property for recreation and outdooreducation use. Cross-country skiing, hiking and biking areallowed on the property. Hunting and trapping is allowed on thePitch Pine Bog property provided hunters and trappers firstobtain a special permit from the president of the Rome chapter.Hunting and trapping may not be conducted within 100 feet ofany marked foot trails. However access for these activities via thetrails is allowed. Big game may be taken with legal archery, butpermittees may not construct permanent tree stands. Small gamemay be taken with shotguns using bird shot only. Trapping isallowed using all legal sets. There are no fires, motorized bikes,


ATVs or camping allowed on the property. Trail work is underwayon the property, and perimeter posting and trail markers havebeen ordered.

4.2.4 Oneida County

Oneida County’s lands, consisting of approximately 800 acres,are managed for timber production by the county Forester.There is no formal written plan for such management, which isdiscussed in Section 2.5. The county allows ATV and legalhunting and trapping uses of its property. Its policy is tosuppress all fires.

4.3 State Agency Regulations

4.3.1 NYSDEC

Regulations Governing Management of State Lands (6 NYCRR190-199)

The NYSDEC’s Division of Lands and Forests manages mostpublic lands in New York State. The Division is made up of threebureaus: Forest Preserve, State Land Management, Private LandServices, and Real Property.

The NYSDEC Bureaus of Forest Preserve and State LandManagement are responsible for the management and care of fourmillion acres of land owned by the people of the State of NewYork. These include State Forests, Unique Areas, the ForestPreserve and Multiple Use areas throughout the State of NewYork. Most of this land is open for public use and recreation.Included in this area is the State land within the RSP managedby the NYSDEC and classified as a Unique Natural Area. Theterm “Unique Area” is generally applied to lands purchased underthe Unique Area category of the 1972 Environmental QualityBond Act and the Unique Character land acquisition projectrating category of the 1986 Environmental Quality Bond Act andthe Unique Area and Unique Character land acquisition projectrating categories of 1992, 1995, 1998 and 2002 versions of theOpen Space Conservation Plan. State lands classified as UniqueAreas are not afforded any specific legal, regulatory or policyprotections or management restrictions. Rather, they aremanaged subject to existing Department of EnvironmentalConservation laws, regulations and policies in a manner thatattempts to perpetuate and enhance their unique ecological,


scenic and geological characteristics.

The NYSDEC Regulations at 6 NYCRR 190-199 describe theregulations and uses of State lands managed by the NYSDEC.These regulations can also apply to lands on which the NYSDECholds a conservation easement that restricts development,management or use of such property, although public use mayalso be restricted.

Part 190: This section describes general regulations on state landsinvolving fire, official signs and structures, camping, use ofpesticides, unique areas, environmentally sensitive lands, andconservation easements. Sections of this law that currently apply,or could in the future apply to the RSP include regulations that:

C Define conservation easement as an easement, covenant,restriction or other interest in real property, which limits orrestricts development, management or use of such realproperty for the purposes of preserving or maintaining thesignificance of the property. (Section 190 (b)(4)).

C Define “unique lands” acquired under the authority of Section51-0701(3) of the Environmental Conservation Law. (Section190 (b)(12)). The RSP Management Area is defined as a“Unique Area.” There are no specific regulations in Section190.10 that discuss the RSP, and so the sections of 190.0,190.1, 190.2, 190.3, 190.4, 190.8, and 190.9 apply to allUnique Areas managed by the Division of Lands and Forests.All Unique Areas are posted as such; descriptions of eachUnique Area are available at the central and regional offices ofthe Department of Environmental Conservation.

C Prohibit snowmobile use on designated ski trails. (Section190.8 (d)).

C State that it is illegal to deface, remove, destroy or injureplants, rocks, fossils and minerals on state lands, or to botherwildlife except during the open season for the species.(Section 190.8(g)).

C Prohibit the use of motor vehicles on State land under thejurisdiction of the NYSDEC, except where specificallypermitted by posting. (Section 190.8(m)).

C Allow the riding, driving, or leading of horses on State landunless otherwise prohibited by law, regulation, posted noticeor the exceptions in the regulation. The exceptions wherehorses are excluded include land devoted to intensivelydeveloped facilities, foot trails (except where such trails arepart of a publicly maintained road or specifically designated to


allow travel by horse), and/or designated snowmobile or skitrails covered with ice or snow. (Section 190.8 (n)).

C Expect people to comply with instructions on NYSDECsignage. (Section 190.8(o)).

C Prohibit the application of pesticides to any State land underthe NYSDEC jurisdiction without written authorization fromthe Department. (Section 190.9(a)).

C On conservation easements held by the Department to whichthe public has a right of access, the following generalregulations apply to persons using such land. The public maynot deface, mutilate, remove or destroy signs or structures ofthe landowner, leasee or Department. The public may noterect signs, structures, gates, barriers or other improvementsunless specifically authorized by the conservation easement.No one except the landowner, invitees or leasees, or theDepartment can operate a motor vehicle or snowmobile on anyroads or trails except those posted for such use. No personexcept the landowner, invitees or leasees or the Departmentshall occupy any structure except in conjunction withtemporary camping.

Part 191 -- Forest Fire Prevention: Section 191.2 describes the firedistricts in the State, and indicates that the Oneida County firedistrict includes the towns of Annsville, Ava, Boonville,Bridgewater, Camden, Florence, Lee, Sangerfield, Steuben,Vienna and Western, but does not include the cities and villageslocated therein. According to Section 191.3, the Department hasthe authority to close State-owned lands if a serious fire hazardexists. According to the NYSDEC’s custodial plan for the RSPdated May 25, 1995, the Rome Fire Department has jurisdictionover fire management in this area. At the present time the RomeFire Department does not allow the use of prescribed fire as a toolfor forest management; however, this agency has expressed awillingness to discuss the use of fire as a management tool.

Part 194 -- Forest Practices: This section of the regulationsauthorizes the Department to sell stock to private landownersfrom nurseries it operates in order to reforest areas. It is possiblethat this portion of the regulation could be used to facilitateoperation of a lupine or other butterfly-beneficial plant nurseryin the RSP. Such a nursery could provide for the distribution ofseedlings to landowners in the RSP to increase the presence ofbeneficial plants in the area.

Part 194 -- Forest Practices: This section of the regulations


authorizes and governs the Department in prescribing andundertaking fires and fire management on state lands under thejurisdiction of the Department. It also describes how theDepartment is to review, approve, and undertake prescribedburns on non-Department lands. It discusses measures to protectadjoining properties, as well as permit, reporting and enforcementrequirements.

Prescribed burns are allowed on State lands such as UniqueAreas outside the Forest Preserve for silviculture management,wildlife habitat management, insect/disease control, forest fuelreduction, wildfire suppression or as an alternative action tomechanical or chemical control of vegetation. Fires that are notnatural (i.e., ignited on purpose) must first have an approvedprescribed fire management plan with provisions for notifying orwaiving notification to local fire officials, airports, police agenciesand health care facilities (Section 194.2). The specific informationthat must be contained in any fire management plan is detailedin Section 194.3.

Wildlife Management Unit

The RSP are in NYSDEC management unit 6K. The NYSDEC hasno special regulations for hunting or trapping in the RSP. TheNYSDEC lands within the RSP are open for hunting and trappingin accordance with State-wide regulations.

NYSDEC – Article 24 – Freshwater Wetlands Act

The NYSDEC regulates nearly all types of activities withinNYSDEC freshwater wetlands 12.4 acres in size or larger, orsmaller if possessing special characteristics, or their 100-footadjacent area. Wetlands are mapped on USGS TopographicQuadrangles that are filed with the county and the town. Figure7 illustrates the location of NYSDEC mapped wetlands in theRSP. The types of activities regulated within mapped NYSDECwetlands or adjacent areas include:

C Construction of trails and installation of culverts

C Vegetation clearing

C Filling or grading activities

C Structures in the wetland


C Draining or otherwise altering water levels except foragriculture

NYSDEC - Section 608 – Use and Protection of Waters:

Under this regulatory program, the NYSDEC regulates activitiesthat may disturb the bed or banks of protected streams (havinga water quality standard of C(t) or higher), the construction ofdams or impoundments, the construction of docks or moorings,the excavation or placement of fill in navigable waters, and theissuance of water quality certificates under Section 401 of theClean Water Act for activities requiring a federal permit. Thereview generally examines the impact the project could have onthe aquatic environment.

In addition, if any federal permit is required for a project, thatinvolves a discharge into a navigable water, a Section 401 WaterQuality Certificate is required from the NYSDEC under 6 NYCRRSection 608, “Use and Protection of Waters.” For example, if apermit is required from the COE place fill for a boat ramp in astream, then a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate would alsobe required from the NYSDEC.

Temporary Revocable Permits

The NYSDEC is authorized to issue temporary revocable permits(TRP’s), generally for education or research purposes. TRP’s allowthe State to evaluate impacts and ensure there are not liabilityconcerns from uses not otherwise allowed, as well as to providefeedback on the results of the research conducted. TRPs currentlyissued in the RSP are those allowing the study of Frosted elfinbutterflies for research purposes.

4.3.2 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and HistoricPreservation (OPRHP)

OPRHP administers Federal and State preservation programs forNew York State. Project review for impacts to cultural andarcheological resources are triggered by the involvement ofFederal or State agencies responsible for undertaking, funding,permitting or licensing any activity that may affect historicproperties. Federal “actions” are reviewed under the NationalHistoric Preservation Act of 1966, Section 106. State “actions” arereviewed under the New York State Historic Preservation Act of1980.


Additionally, State Education Law Section 233 provides for theprotection of cultural and scientific resources on State lands.Such resources may not be damaged or removed except withpermission of the State.

4.4 Federal Agency Regulations

4.4.1 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

The COE (Buffalo District Regulatory Branch) regulates activitiesin navigable waters and related wetlands. Under this regulatoryprogram, authorization is required for work or structures innavigable waters, or the discharge of dredged or fill material intoany regulated water or wetland. Note that a navigable waterincludes all tributaries of a stream.

In the area of the RSP, Fish Creek is considered navigable fromthe Erie Canal to Fish Creek Landing, where Rt. 13 crosses FishCreek. Wood Creek is considered navigable to Cove Road.Wetlands are not “pre-mapped” by the COE, but rather identifiedby on-site delineation of the wetland boundary using soils,vegetation and hydrology.

The following are some examples of activities which, if undertakenwithin a water or wetland, could require a permit from the COE:

• Construction of trails and installation of culvert• Burial of utility lines underground for visual improvements• Streambank stabilization• Minor discharges and/or dredging to clean out creeks or

ponds• Stream and Wetland Restoration Activities• Improving habitat quality of wetlands for wildlife• Maintenance of existing flood control projects• Reshaping drainage ditches• Recreational facilities

Some minor activities can be permitted through the NationwidePermit process, while other activities with potentially greaterimpacts would require an individual permit.

4.4.2 Federal Emergency Management Agency

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has mapped


areas of flooding along streams in the RSP study area. Thesefloodplains are illustrated on Figure 6. In general, new structuresconstructed in the 100-year floodplain must be elevated at orabove the 100-year floodplain elevation, or they must be flood-proofed. Construction within floodways must not reduce storagevolumes or cause an increase in the base flood elevation. A permitis required for construction within the floodplain or floodway.

4.5 City of Rome Regulations

The RSP are within the municipal boundaries of the city of Rome.The City of Rome has divided its municipal area into two areasdesignated as the Inner District and the Outer District. The InnerDistrict is the more densely developed land, while the Outer Districtis less developed. The Inner District extends northward to PotterRoad, eastward encompassing Griffiss Business and Technology Park,adjacent to the town of Floyd, southward to the New York State BargeCanal, and westward to Gifford Road. The study area lies within theOuter District, which encompasses all of the lands outside of theabove-described boundaries.

A comprehensive master plan for 1970 to 1990 was developed for theInner District of the city of Rome; this plan also included portions ofthe RSP west of the Inner District (i.e. the Outer District). The cityinitiated an update to the plan in 2002. Within the study area, theRSP are designated for rural residential and agriculture use, withsome of the stream corridors designated for Recreation and OpenSpace use. The Rural Residential and Agriculture Use designationsare identified in the master plan as being suitable for single familyhousing, convenience commercial facilities, farming, forestry andextractive type activities. The master plan identified a growth limit oftwo dwelling units per acre. The Recreation/Open Space Use isdesignated as suitable for parks, cemeteries and conservation typeuses. The West Rome Industrial Site, located on the eastern edge ofthe RSP on both sides of Rt. 69 is identified as an industrial area,suitable for wholesaling, warehousing, transportation, retailing andmanufacturing activities.

The comprehensive master plan states “urban growth will be gradualand continuous, forming a lineal corridor type of development alongTurin Road and West Thomas Street. If the City of Rome is tomaximize its future growth potential, it should give high priority todevelopment programs along Turin Road and West Thomas Street.Secondary priorities should be assigned to the new industrial parklocated west of the urban core in the vicinity of Rt. 69 and residential


areas along Rts. 69 and 233 south of the urban area of Rome.”

Zoning in the RSP is illustrated by Figure 12, Zoning. The majority ofthe RSP is zoned F-1 and F-2, although there are other designations,as illustrated by Figure 12. Appendix L, City of Rome ZoningRegulations, provides tables summarizing the zoning regulations forall of the zoning districts in the RSP.

The purpose of the F-1 Zoning District is to fill the need for land withagricultural uses encouraged and residential uses permitted, andprovide a compatible environment for raising crops and dairyproducts with limited residential development. Allowed uses includeagricultural uses, one-family dwellings, places of worship, library orschool, public park or facility and public utility structures and privateoutdoor recreation facilities, seasonal roadside stands for agriculturalproducts, riding stables, commercial dog kennels and commercialraising of farm animals, veterinary hospitals, and bed and breakfasts.Within the F-1 Zoning District, the minimum lot size is one acre, with25% building coverage, and building heights of 35 feet. The minimumlot width is 100 feet, and front, side, and rear yard set backs are 30,15 and 30 feet respectively.

The purpose of the F-2 Zoning District is to protect land fromdevelopment where soil, water and access conditions makedevelopment possible only under certain conditions. In these areas,natural conditions may cause damage to buildings and danger tohuman health, and because of that, all development is reviewed onan individual basis. Allowed uses include agricultural uses, onefamily dwelling with structures, boat launching areas with structures

accessory to the primary use, public utilities and public landfill operations.Within the F-2 Zoning District, the minimum lot size is three acres, anddevelopment can only occur in planned development districts. Theminimum lot width is 175 feet, and the front, side, and rear yard set backsare 50, 30, and 50 feet respectively.

5.0 MANAGEMENT ISSUES

This section of the plan discusses the major issues identified by theplanning process with respect to use and management of the RSP. It setsforth the questions to be addressed in the creation of the plan. Suchquestions are then addressed through the adoption of goals and objectives(see Section 6.0) and the formulation of specific managementrecommendations (see Section 7.0).


5.1 Information Needs

There are significant data needs with respect to understanding someof the ecologic and biologic processes at work in the RSP. In someinstances it is not yet possible to make good management decisionsbecause insufficient data are available on which to base suchdecisions. The following is a summary of these data needs.

1. Better Understanding of the Role of Fire in Maintaining the PitchPine Community. The role of fire in maintaining the pitch pinecommunity is poorly understood. Based on the limited dataavailable (one core from a peat bog), it appears that pitch pine didnot appear in the RSP until 300 to 600 years ago. It is unknownwhether the appearance of pitch pine is correlated with fires,perhaps from Native American activities (hence the older date) orfrom clearing activities such as logging and agriculture associatedwith settlers (resulting in a younger date). It does appear probablethat twentieth century fires associated with the railroad linesthrough the RSP helped maintain the pitch pine community. Therailroads switched to diesel in the 1950s and have been inactivesince the 1970s, removing this source of fire. It appears that thepitch pine community is now succeeding to a typicalAppalachian-oak forest community in the uplands, although notin the wetlands. The key question is whether the unusual pitchpine community represents the climax community for the RSP, orwhether it is a temporary, perhaps human induced aberration.With additional information in hand, a decision can be madewhether to attempt to manage the pitch pine community with fireor through means such as selective harvests, seed tree,shelterwood or clearcutting management systems or acombination of fire and silviculture methods. Research activitiesneeded to understand the role of fire in maintaining thisecosystem include the collection, analysis and carbon dating ofadditional cores from peat bogs in various locations; theexamination of soils in the vicinity of the railroad bed; collectionand analysis for fire history of cores from pitch pines in variouslocations; review of precipitation records and correlation withrecorded fire history; review of additional recorded sources foraccounts of historic fires; and interviews with elders and NativeAmericans to collect information about past fire history.

2. Better Understanding of Hydrology in the RSP. Although it appearsthat water levels in the RSP’s wetlands and bogs have remainedstable and that the area is underlain by a good aquifer, there is


little scientific understanding of the underlying hydrology of theRSP. For example, it has been speculated that the constructionof the railroad bed through the RSP may have influenceddrainage in the Huckleberry Swamp. Blocking of culverts bybeavers has caused some flooding in the southern end of theswamp, but it is not known what the effects are throughout theswamp. Changes in nearby land use, for example paving inassociation with commercial development immediately to the eastof the RSP may affect runoff and infiltration patterns. Thecemented ortstein layer may be a contributor to the perchedwater table. These questions in turn relate to an understandingof processes within the swamp. As an example, the genesis of thehummocks in the Huckleberry swamp is unknown. Similarly, itis not understood why there are pitch pines, a species that likesdry, arid soils, growing in hummocks in some wetlands. A betterunderstanding of hydrology is necessary to assess howmanagement activities may affect the health of wetlands as wellas to assess how human activities such as construction ofcommercial development, wells or landfills and sand mining mayaffect recharge and water movement. The primary research needhere is the design and implementation of a plan to measure andmonitor ground and surface water levels throughout the RSP inorder to create a baseline of information.

3. Collection of Water Quality Data. There is very little water qualitydata, either for surface or ground water, available for the RSP.For example, it is not known whether runoff from the TanneryRoad Landfill may be adversely affecting water quality, nor is itknown if any land uses may be affecting surface water quality, forexample the quality of water in Brandy Brook. Baseline waterquality data is needed throughout the RSP to better understandits natural processes.

4. Map Red-shouldered Hawk Nest Trees. The Red-shouldered Hawkis a State listed species of special concern that nests in the RSP,especially in swamp forests. Nest trees and potential nest treesshould be located and mapped so that they may be protected andavoided. It may also be desirable to extend such mapping toinclude other tree nesting species such as owls.

5. Conduct Additional Lupine Research. Additional research isneeded to understand the best way to grow and maintain healthypopulations of blue lupine, which can in turn be used to maintainthe frosted elfin butterfly as well as potentially support theintroduction/re-introduction of the Karner blue butterfly, both of


which are State-listed rare species (the Karner blue is alsoFederally listed). Examples of poorly understood topics includewhether nitrogen-fixing by lupines alters plant succession andwhether micorrhizae are important for lupines.

6. Conduct Periodic Plant and Animal Censuses. Ongoing datacollection is essential to managing a healthy ecosystem. Periodicplant and animal censuses are needed to establish long-termtrends and to monitor the health of the RSP’s diverse, and insome cases, fragile, ecosystems.

7. Undertake Comprehensive GIS Mapping. Although good GISmapping exists in the RSP, more detailed mapping of featuressuch as the sand dunes, nest trees and species locations isneeded. Data collection would ideally be carried out using globalpositioning system (GPS) technology.

5.2 Ecological Integrity

There are major issues that must be addressed to protect theecological integrity of the RSP’s diverse natural areas. These issuesare summarized as follows:

1. Land Protection. Key to maintaining the ecological integrity of theRSP is the acquisition or other protection of sufficient lands toallow ecological processes to continue to function. This applies toall the unique ecosystems that make up the RSP. In addition toacquiring property that helps to assemble a unique area of theappropriate minimum size, other lands may also be needed toabate potential threats to the resources within the RSP.Furthermore, the acquisition or other protection of land(including land protection strategies such as fee acquisition,conservation easements and local zoning regulations) may beneeded to link units of land together, protect ecologically valuablelands, and/or provide access to key use areas. This planrecommends that the decision to acquire and/or protectadditional land be based on the extent to which lands meetcertain defined criteria, which are further discussed in Section 7.This plan further recommends that methods of protection otherthan acquisition be considered, such as easements anddevelopment right purchase or transfer.

2. Fire Management. A fundamental issue with respect to themanagement of the RSP is whether or not to use fire in themanagement of the pitch pine community. As discussed in


section 5.1 above, it appears likely, but is not completely certain,that fire has had a role in creating and maintaining the pitch pinecommunity. It does appear that fire had a maintenance roleduring the 20 century. Whether due to the absence of fire or theth

decline of agriculture and logging, the pitch pine communityappears to be succeeding to an Appalachian oak forestcommunity. There are societal pressures against the use of fire,especially in an area as small as the RSP. Furthermore, fire ispersonnel intensive and requires the use of public resources. Iffire is to be used, it will require a concerted education andcommunication effort with local government and fire responseofficials. Whether or not fire can be an effective tool may best beanswered by conducting a test burn and comparing the resultswith those achieved by the application of various silviculturetechniques, soil scarification and herbicide use. Such a testwould allow for the development of guidelines for keeping fire ata prescribed distance from houses, maintaining a smoke bufferand similar considerations.

3. Lupine Management. Various activities are needed to manage theblue lupine if frosted elfin butterfly populations are to bemaintained and the Karner blue butterfly introduced.Requirements as outlined in New York State’s Karner BlueButterfly Recovery Plan include the need to establish the lupineon at least four sites a minimum five acres in size each. The sitesshould ideally be separated by at least 200 meters, and formalcorridors are needed if the sites are more than 500 meters apart.Significant work will be needed to identify and establish suchsites. Substantial volunteer labor is likely to be necessary toestablish new and expanded populations of lupines, for example,place and transplant sets, water them, protect them fromherbivore predation and maintain an open canopy. Additionalnectaring plants are likely to be required.

4. Land Sensitivity. The RSP consists of a mix of lands of varyingsensitivity. Some parts of the RSP can tolerate relatively highlevels of use, while others are very sensitive. It is important thatonly those levels of use and facilities development that can besupported by the natural resources without adverse impact beallowed.

5. Invasive Plants. Invasive plants can displace native species, oftenforming monotypic stands which are low quality for wildlife. Theycan drastically alter the functions of natural systems. Becauseinvasive plants are highly successful and very adaptive, once


established they are difficult to eliminate. It is important to takepreemptive measures to prevent the introduction and/or spreadof noxious weeds.

The use of the term weeds suggests plants that are typically thoughtof as undesirable or that have no use. However plants that aredesirable in certain locations may be undesirable in other locations.Common grasses and agricultural plants, introduced to a naturalenvironment may be undesirable and become invasive.

Invasive species may gain a foothold through a wide range of sourcesincluding: construction equipment, landscape disturbances, highwaytraffic, people, pets, livestock, wild animal dispersion or escape fromcultivation. Monitoring, assessment and management decisionsshould be carried out consistent with factual, science basedknowledge in order to protect the attributes of this unique area.

5.3 Wildlife Management

There are several unique wildlife issues that must be consideredrelated to the unique habitats present in the RSP.

1. Maintenance and Enhancement of Frosted Elfin Habitat. Issueswith respect to enhancement of frosted elfin habitat are theestablishment of suitable nectaring species in appropriatelocations and the creation of flight corridors between as well aswithin habitat areas. Further evaluation of the RSP is needed toidentify the areas best suited for Frosted elfin habitatenhancement.

2. Reintroduction of Karner Blue Butterfly. Although it has not beenconfirmed that the Karner blue butterfly was historically presentin the RSP, the State’s Karner blue butterfly recovery teamconsiders the RSP as a potential re-introduction site. In addition,the Federal Karner BlueButterfly Recovery team identified theRSP as a potential recovery unit. This plan advocates the re-introduction of the Karner blue to the RSP. Key issues to beresolved are the location and amount of habitat (i.e. blue lupine)in the recovery sites, since the State’s recovery team recommendsat least four sites of five acres each. In addition, flight corridorswill likely need to be established between different habitat areas.Further evaluation of the RSP is needed to identify the areas bestsuited for Karner blue recovery. It is likely that these will be thesame areas selected for enhancement of Frosted elfin habitat.Among factors thought to be important to lupine introduction are


protection from herbivores, suitable pre-germination treatment ofthe seeds and maintaining adequate moisture for Blue lupineseedlings. There may also be other factors. It is expected that asubstantial volunteer effort will be required to establishpopulations of blue lupine of sufficient viability to allowestablishment of the Karner blue.

3. Reintroduction of Landlocked Atlantic Salmon. Various proposalshave been made for the reintroduction of Landlocked AtlanticSalmon to Fish Creek. Wood Creek, as a tributary of Fish Creek,also likely harbored these fish at one time. This issue is mostlyoutside the scope of this plan because the resource extends wellbeyond the bounds of the RSP; however, the viability anddesirability of such restoration should be further explored.

4. Chronic Wasting Disease. In 1995 Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD)was discovered in the wild white-tailed deer population in thecentral Oneida County area. Special regulations have beenenacted to help contain the spread of this disease and to protectthe health of white-tailed deer in New York. These regulationsestablish a containment area and control the transport of wild orcaptive deer including those taken in the containment areaduring the regular big game season. The Rome Sand Plains isincluded in the area where the special regulations apply.

5.4 Public Use

Public use is an important component of the managementconsiderations in the RSP.

1. Hunting. Hunting regulations in the RSP vary by landowner.Among the landowners there are institutional constraints tomaking the rules uniform, including concerns about ecosystemmaintenance, trespass, liability and conflicts with other users.The NYSDEC’s and the county’s hunting rules are the same asthe uniform statewide regulations. The IWL allows small gamehunting (e.g. rabbits and squirrels); TNC does not. The IWL mayallow bird hunting; TNC will not. The IWL allows trapping; TNCcurrently does not. The IWL does not currently allow the use ofrifles in hunting deer, but does allow shotguns for birds and bowhunting for deer. TNC will consider allowing both. The IWL andTNC require permits to hunt on their land. TNC will considerdoing away with this requirement; the IWL will not. In general,TNC has expressed a willingness to adopt hunting regulations


similar to the State’s. The differing rules and regulations reflectthe differing philosophies of the ownership entities and ittherefore may not be possible to forge a uniform set of huntingrules within the RSP.

2. All Terrain Vehicles. All terrain vehicle (ATV) use is popular in theRSP, even though it is prohibited on all lands covered by thisplan. Unfortunately, ATVs can cause a great deal of damage tothe sensitive bog and sand dune environments of the sand plains.Trespass is a significant problem on some properties. ATVs aredifficult to catch, so enforcement is a problem. Options includeoutright banning or attempting to find an area where responsibleuse can be allowed and encouraged. Any allowed use would haveto not result in damage to the environment and would have to becompatible with other public use while protecting the rights ofadjacent property owners. However, any scheme that allowedsome form of use would be likely to conflict with one or more ofthis plan’s goals because of the trespass problem and the extremesensitivity of the resource.

3. Trail Access. Where and how to allow recreational access areissues in the development of any plan for natural areas. Given thesensitivity of this resource, it is important to allow only thoseforms of access that will not damage the resource. This includesfoot and cross country ski use of all trails and mountain bicycleuse of selected trails. Although not owned by members of thecurrent RSP Management Team, the use of the former New YorkCentral and Hudson railroad bed through the sand plains wouldbenefit the overall trail system. Ideally, all trails in the RSP wouldbe appropriately marked, preferably with a uniform RSP trailmarker. Gates will be needed to prevent inappropriate use. Theconcept of a uniform trail marker could be extended to the scenicroads in the RSP. Similarly, trails could be linked to resourcessuch as Wood Creek and, if public lands are acquired, on FishCreek. Additionally one or more forms of recreational access forthe disabled are needed. Guidelines for such access are providedin Appendix Q. The management of recreational access whileavoiding vandalism is a concern. Trailhead signage and parkingareas are required. Finally, the trails on the Izaak Walton land areperiodically flooded by beaver activity and thus require frequentrerouting.

4. Water Access. With limited clearing of downed trees andmovement of snags, Wood Creek could be well suited to providinga canoe trail for users of the RSP. The intersection of Wood Creek


with Rts. 46/49 provides an outstanding put-in point, while itsintersection with Rt. 49 provides a logical take-out point. WoodCreek could also be allowed as a public fishing area. Care mustbe taken not to destroy the historic resources such as canal cutsfound along Wood Creek. Access to and control of these resourcesmust be addressed.

5. User Conflicts. Managing user conflicts is necessary for any plansuch as this. Such conflicts may be both magnified and easier tosolve in the RSP because of its small size. The following conflictshave been identified.

a. Hunters and non-hunters. Hikers and nature watchers aresometimes uncomfortable knowing that hunters are in thearea. Hunters in turn sometimes complain that hikers scareand run-off the wildlife they are stalking.

b. ATV users and other users. ATV users feel that theirs is alegitimate use of public land. Others find them noisy, intrusiveand damaging to the environment.

c. Target shooting and other users. The former sandpit onHogsback Road is used by target shooters. As with hunters,some hikers are bothered by the noise and intrusion.Furthermore, there are apparent safety conflicts with this useoccurring in close proximity to a public trailhead.

6. Sanitary Facilities. As use of the sand plains increases, the needfor sanitary facilities will have to be considered. These couldinclude temporary or permanent facilities at trailheads.

5.5 Cultural and Historic Resources

There are a number of cultural and historic features that needconsideration in the management plan, most related to RPS locationalong a historic transportation corridor along Wood Creek and nearthe Erie Canal.

1. Wood Creek. Wood Creek is, according to the New York StateMuseum, a landscape of national significance. It is also littlepublicized and has not been thoroughly investigated. It should beconsidered an area rich in cultural and archaeological resourceswaiting to be discovered. Protection of this resource, while at thesame time allowing access to features such as historic canal cuts,is therefore of great importance.

2. Heritage Corridors. The RSP lies within both the Mohawk Valley


Heritage Corridor and the Erie Canalway National HeritageCorridor. Interpretation of the role of the RSP within these largerfeatures is needed.

3. Cultural Resources. High ground in the vicinity of the threestream confluences discussed in Section 2.3 may containprehistoric resources. Historic resources may be found in thearea of Seiferts Corners. Surveys by qualified specialists shouldbe undertaken to determine if resources are present and, if so,they should be protected and interpreted.

5.6 Education and Interpretation

1. Public Awareness. The overall level of public knowledge andawareness of the RSP is considered relatively low, but it isgrowing. Efforts are needed on a number of fronts to buildawareness; an aware public is one that will support andparticipate in the protection and enhancement of the resource.Diverse efforts including the creation of mobile presentations,brochures, curricula for classes and web sites are needed.Sponsored hikes and other events can help build publicity.Community leaders, teachers and decision makers can be invitedto visit and learn about the sand plains, turning them intoadvocates for the area.

2. Partnerships. A variety of partnerships are essential to managingan area such as the RSP. These include partnerships withlandowners in and around the RSP, partnerships withorganizations managing similar resources such as the AlbanyPine Bush Commission, partnerships with local government,partnerships with schools, colleges and universities andpartnerships with other environmental, conservation,educational, sportsman and recreation organizations.Partnerships can have both formal and informal structures.Volunteers can assist with wildlife censuses, trails layout and avariety of maintenance activities.

3. Signage. Consistent signage is important to building an identityas well as informing and educating the public. Signs should bestrategically placed, attractively designed and able to withstandvandals and the weather. Additionally, waypoint signs are neededto direct visitors to the RSP.

5.7 Aesthetics


1. Maintaining Scenic Character. One of the RSP’s major assets is itsscenic character. Many of the roadways traversing the Sandplains are pleasant to drive, bicycle or walk along. Structuresconstructed within the RSP, including new development, have thepotential to detract from its scenic character. Similarly, litter andtrash detract from the aesthetic character of the RSP.

2. Property Clean-up. Clean up of property in the RSP has beenongoing and will need to continue, both to ensure aestheticquality and to prevent environmental contamination. Priority hasbeen given to recent acquisitions. It is anticipated that clean-upof trails will be required as they are brought into public use, asthey have frequently been the scene of dumping.

5.8 Land Use and Development

1. Infrastructure Extension. Extension of water and sewerinfrastructure into the RSP could have the effect of encouragingdevelopment, thus converting natural areas to a developed stateand in all likelihood adversely impacting the RSP’s ecosystems,particularly by fragmenting intact habitat areas. Therefore, suchextensions should, if they occur, be targeted towards servingexisting development rather than promoting new development.This should be considered by the City of Rome as it develops itsmaster plan for the Outer District, in which the RSP lies.

2. Hydrology. Increased development in and around the RSP has thepotential to adversely impact the hydrological patterns on whichit depends through the creation of increased impervious area andaltered patterns of runoff. This too should be considered by theCity of Rome in its planning and zoning activities.

3. Tax Base. Acquisition of additional lands in the RSP may beperceived as adversely affecting the City of Rome’s tax base.However, this issue is likely to be one of perception rather thanfact because the types of lands to be acquired in the future wouldlikely be predominantly wetlands or similar properties with a lowdevelopment (and therefore assessed) value (see Section 2.6 ofthis plan). Furthermore, a variety of evidence suggests that theproximity of undeveloped natural areas favorably influences thevalue of nearby residential properties. Additionally, the presenceof an important natural area such as the RSP contributes to theoverall quality of life in the greater Rome community, againpositively impacting property values.


5.9 Administration

1. Administrative Structure. As public and private conservationorganization ownership in the RSP grows in size and complexityand as facilities are developed, there may be the need to ensurethat a long-term management structure is in place that caneffectively address the RSP’s issues

The current management structure, an ad hoc voluntaryarrangement among the public and conservancy landowners andinterested parties has so far proved effective at protectingsensitive resources and increasing recreation opportunities.Issues that may effect the future viability of this structure includeits limited ability to obtain State or Federal funding, its lack oflegal authority, its difficulty in hiring staff and its inability toenforce appropriate restrictions.

The creation of a long-term management structure for the RSP isa significant challenge because of the large number of bothlandowners and stakeholders. Key considerations in choosing anorganizational structure are:

C Local and State government own only a portion of the RSP;hence if a government led model was chosen, it mustadequately represent the interests of non-governmentlandowners. Additionally, there may be some distrust of a newgovernment entity among local landowners.

C The structure should include mechanisms for participation bylandowners, stakeholders and local residents, since all havelegitimate interests in the RSP.

C The structure should be able to meet some level of staffing andfunding needs.

C Visibility, flexibility and accountability are needed.C The ability to generate funding and maintain long term

stability are essential.

There are a variety of structures that have been considered by thecurrent voluntary management team. These include:

a. Continue the current partnership structure. This structurehas so far proved effective. It has the advantages anddisadvantages discussed above.

b. Not-for-profit corporation. Such a corporation would begoverned by a board of directors and elected officers. It could


be formed with or without members. If there were dues-payingmembers, they would elect the board of directors. If there wereno dues-paying members, then the board of directors wouldchoose its own members. A not-for-profit corporation canreceive charitable donations from individuals and grants fromcorporations and foundations. It is eligible for some State andFederal grants, but not all types (for example, those limited tomunicipal corporations). A not-for-profit could function as aland trust. This type of structure is flexible, has fewrestrictions such as are placed on State agencies, and allowsexisting not-for-profit entities a direct role in management ofthe organization. The Wilton Wildlife Preserve is an example ofa not-for-profit corporation made up of members from the TNCand town and county government.

c. State Agency With Regulatory Power. With appropriateauthorizing legislation, a state agency with regulatory powercould be created. The enabling legislation would specify theorganizational structure. This type of organization wouldreceive funding from the State, and often through some sortof local revenue stream such as licenses or permits. Itsemployees are State employees. It has the power to promulgateand enforce regulations. Among the advantages of this modelare the direct access to State funds and the authority to exertregulatory control. Disadvantages are the cost to operate andthe lack of a formal role for non-State members of themanagement structure. An example of this type of agency isthe Lake George Park Commission.

d. State Agency Without Regulatory Power. State legislation canalso create an agency without regulatory powers that servesmore of a planning and coordinating function. Such agenciescan be governed by a board appointed by state and localagencies. Such agencies receive State funding and theiremployees are state employees. This model has the sameadvantages and disadvantages as the previous model, exceptthat it lacks regulatory authority. An example of this type ofagency is the Tug Hill Commission.

e. Hybrid State Agency. This type of State agency is representedby the Albany Pine Bush Commission, which manages an areasimilar to the RSP. Its board is made up of members appointedby State and local entities. Unlike the previous examples,staffing can come from non-state employees. It is eligible toreceive state, private, foundation and not-for-profit


organization funding. This type of agency may regulate publiclands under its control, but not private lands. It may notadopt regulations. This model has the advantage of greaterflexibility than the other state agency models, although it isstill subject to operational difficulties because of the rulesgoverning state agency operations.

f. State Facilitated Compact. This model involves the signing ofa written compact among all member entities. It can involveboth public and private entities. Funding may be obtainedfrom government and non-government sources, with suchfunding used to hire staff. It is similar to the current RSPManagement team in that it is both informal and flexible.Disadvantages are the lack of a formal structure for manytypes of management activities. An example of this type ofmodel is the Lake George 2000 Compact.

As noted, each of these structures has advantages and disadvantagesthat must be considered within the framework of all of the RSP’sgoals.

2. Enforcement. Enforcement is a difficult issue because of the sizeof the sand plains and its diverse ownership. Enforcement iscurrently carried out by individual property owners as well as aNYSDEC Forest Ranger, who has many responsibilities besidespatrolling the sand plains. It is important to ensure that theformal Forest Ranger and/or Environmental Conservation PoliceOfficer enforcement presence continues to be adequately funded.Fish and Wildlife Management Act (FWMA) cooperator agreementscould provide NYSDEC enforcement of lands not owned byNYSDEC.

3. Boundary Identification. Both internal and external boundaries ofthe RSP need to be better defined. Uniform marking will helpraise public awareness and will assist with trespass avoidance.A uniform marker could be employed on both public and privatelyheld lands. Because of NYSDEC administrative requirements,separate State and RSP signs may still have to be maintained onState land.

6.0 GOALS OF THE PLAN

Goals are broad policy directives that provide the framework for futuredecisions. This section of the plan sets forth the formal goals guiding


management of the RSP. It bears repeating at the outset that the centralvision of this plan is the maintenance of a healthy ecosystem in the RSP.

6.1 Land Management Goals

C Goal: Preserve and protect areas of geological significance,specifically the sand dunes.

C Goal: Preserve and protect sensitive environmental andcultural resources from inappropriate or destructivedevelopment.

C Goal: Encourage a compatible balance of conservancy landsand low-density residential development.

C Goal: Maintain the vegetated character of publicly ownedROW’s in the RSP.

C Goal: Maintain the natural and historic character of WoodCreek.

C Goal: Clearly define the external, internal and trail boundariesof the RSP.

C Goal: Ensure adequate resources for enforcement of rules andregulations.

C Goal: Keep properties free from trash and debris.

6.2 Ecological Management Goals

C Goal: Maintain the diverse mosaic of rare natural communitiesin the RSP: Pitch Pine Blueberry Peat Swamp, Pine BarrensVernal Pond, Dwarf Shrub Bog, Black Spruce–Tamarack Bog,and Pitch Pine Heath Barrens within the matrix of commoncommunities such as the Appalachian Oak Forest.

C Goal: Obtain a better understanding of the frosted elfin’snatural history, habitat requirements and host plants andtake steps to increase the population of this species.

C Goal: Establish sufficient blue lupine and nectar plants toallow introduction of the Karner blue butterfly.

C Goal: Reverse the successional processes that are leading to


the decline of the pitch pine habitat.

C Goal: Manage and protect areas for special concern,threatened or endangered species such as the frosted elfin andthe Red-shouldered Hawk, as well as unusual or uncommonspecies such as orchids, pitcher plant, sundew, fisher andneo-tropical migrant birds.

C Goal: Acquire additional lands to support the long-term healthand maintenance of the RSP and link the RSP to other naturalareas.

C Goal: Engage in research programs to better understand thenatural and anthropogenic processes at work in the RSP,especially the role of silviculture, fire and hydrologic processeswith respect to maintenance of natural communities.

C Goal: Engage in research to better understand the compositionand sustaining processes of the natural communities thatmake up the RSP.

C Goal: Engage in a regular monitoring program of surveys andcensuses of plant and animal populations and naturalcommunity boundaries and conditions in order to betterunderstand the health of the ecosystem.

C Goal: Manage nuisance wildlife only as required to avoidimpacts to trails, roads, private properties and other naturalcommunities.

C Goal: Provide a public fishing experience on Wood Creek.

C Goal: Support re-introduction of Atlantic Salmon in FishCreek.

6.3 Public Use Management Goals

C Goal: Designate sensitive communities as trailless areas inwhich no man-made structures will intrude.

C Goal: Create an integrated trail system in the RSP, includingthe potential for and linkages to trails that are specificallymarked for cross-country skiing, bicycle, snowmobile anddisabled accessible trails.


C Goal: Link the RSP trails to other regional trail systems,including the New York State Canalway to the south.

C Goal: Create a canoe trail on Wood Creek.

C Goal: Take measures to prohibit ATV use on the public andprivate conservation organization lands in the RSP.

C Goal: Provide for public hunting and trapping in accordancewith the rules and regulations of the various ownershipinterests.

C Goal: Resolve encroachment issues on RSP lands.

6.4 Education and Interpretation Goals

C Goal: Promote awareness of the unique biological and culturalresources of the RSP through development of educationalmaterials such as a school curriculum, a mobile slide showand internet site.

C Goal: Engage in a regular program of educational hikes,lectures and activities.

C Goal: Develop a trail brochure providing information about theRSP

C Goal: Develop a signage plan providing an identity to andinformation about the RSP.

C Goal: Continue to investigate, preserve and publicize thehistoric and cultural resources of the RSP.

C Goal: Cooperate with other agencies and entities to publicizethe RSP.

6.5 Administration Goals

C Goal: Provide a suitable administration/managementstructure consisting of landowners, stakeholders andresidents, in order to effectively carry out the managementactivities set forth in this plan.

C Goal: Identify dedicated funding sources to support the


management of the RSP.

C Goal: Engage in partnerships with landowners andenvironmental, conservation, sportsman and recreationorganizations, including the development of volunteerpartnerships.

C Goal: Regularly review and update the management plan.

C Goal: Secure funding for seasonal land steward positionsdevoted to programs of information and education,stewardship, lupine management and other activities relatedto the management of the RSP.

7.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

This section of the plan sets forth specific management proposals to beimplemented in the RSP. Management proposals have been developed toaddress the issues in Section 5 and be consistent with the goals in Section6. Management proposals are both policy oriented (e.g. adoption of a ruleor regulation of some kind) and action oriented (e.g. construct animprovement of some kind). Figure 14 illustrates the physicalrecommendations of this plan.

In addition, the NYSDEC, as required by State regulations, has identified aspecific schedule of actions and budget for activities on State lands. Thisinformation is found in Appendix R.

7.1 Land Acquisition

Key to maintaining the ecological integrity of the RSP is theacquisition or other protection of sufficient lands to allow ecologicalprocesses to continue to function. This applies to all the uniqueecosystems that make up the RSP. In addition to acquiring propertythat helps to assemble a unique area of the appropriate minimumsize, other lands may also be needed to abate potential threats to theresources within the RSP. Furthermore, the acquisition or otherprotection of land may be needed to link units of land together,protect ecologically valuable lands, and/or provide access to key useareas. This plan recommends that the decision to acquire and/orprotect additional land be based on the extent to which such landsmeet certain criteria.

In general, the more of the criteria a specific property meets, the morevaluable that property may be from a land protection and/oracquisition viewpoint. This does not, however, relate in any way to the


property appraisal, the assessed value, or the monetary payment thatmay be offered to acquire that property. Additionally, although thefollowing criteria provide an indication of which areas may bedesirable to acquire or otherwise protect, the overriding factor whichinfluences this ultimate decision is whether there is a willing seller.For example, although an area may be identified as being highlydesirable or valuable, the property will not be obtained unless thereis a willing seller. Therefore, there may also be instances where landsthat meet fewer of the following criteria may be purchased orprotected sooner because of the offer from a willing seller. All of thesecriteria and factors must be considered and carefully balanced in thedecision to acquire and/or protect lands within or near the RSP. Thisis especially significant if resources needed to acquire or otherwiseprotect lands are limited.

Again, this plan recommends that the decision to acquire and/orprotect additional land be based on the extent to which such landsmeet the following criteria and that all acquisition efforts beconsistent with the policies and procedures of the New York StateOpen Space Conservation Plan.

A. The property includes an ECOLOGICALLY VALUABLE arearequiring protection.

The following factors are considered in determining “ecologicallyvaluable” land:

1. The property is within the geologically defined “sand plains”as is typically characterized by sandy soils and sanddunes, remnant of the ancient Lake Iroquois.

2. The property contains plant communities considered rareor unusual and/or plants and animals listed as rare,endangered, or species of special concern, and/or itcontains areas potentially suitable for the restoration ofsuch species.

3. The property is wholly or partially within NYS Class I orClass II regulated wetlands.

4. The property is wholly or partially within the HuckleberrySwamp or the Pitch Pine Bog.

5. The property contains significant wildlife habitat areas asdefined through the NHP.

B. The property CONSOLIDATES existing holdings or ecologically


valuable areas.

The following factors are considered in defining what propertiesmay serve to “consolidate” existing holdings and ecologicallyvaluable land:

1. The property is surrounded by or directly adjacent toproperty currently owned by the NYS DEC, TNC, IWL,and/or the county of Oneida.

2. The property is surrounded by or directly adjacent toecologically valuable property as identified in Criteria A.

C. The property is geographically located to provide for regional andlocalized linkages.

The following factors are considered in defining what propertiesmay serve as “linkages.” The linkages can occur between anycombination of the areas noted below.

1. The property is geographically located between existingholdings (as defined in Criteria C.1.) and /or ecologicallysignificant areas (as defined in Criteria A).

2. The property is within or adjoins railroad or utility ROW’s.

3. The property abuts an existing stream corridor.

4. The property provides for a continuation of ecologicallyimportant cover types and/or forests.

5. The property is within 500 feet of the Wood Creek, FishCreek and/or Brandy Brook corridor.

6. The property is located within or adjacent to an area notedby the NYS Museum, NYS Parks, Recreation and HistoricPreservation, and/or Mohawk Valley Heritage CorridorCommission for historic and/or cultural significance.

D. The property provides a BUFFER needed to protect ecologically-valuable lands from inappropriate use.

The following factors are considered in defining what propertiesmay serve to “buffer” ecologically valuable land:

1. The property is directly adjacent to an ecologicallysignificant area (as defined in Criteria A).


2. The property is geographically located between anecologically significant area (as defined in Criteria A) and a“land use” that may threaten the integrity of theecologically significant area. Such land uses may include,but not be limited to: commercial/industrial land uses,mining activities, high density residential areas, intensiverecreation or public use areas, areas needed for smokebuffers and areas exposed to toxic substances

E. The property is strategically located to provide ACCESS forrecreation or other types of uses.

The following are considered in determining properties that maybe valuable as points of “access” for recreation and other types ofuses:

1. The property is located at the intersection of a public roadand stream corridor.

2. The property includes frontage on a public road andprovides a direct linkage to an ecologically significant area(as defined in Criteria A) or a primary use area as definedwithin the RSP Management Plan.

F. The property is largely comprised of certain NATURALRESOURCES AND LIMITATIONS that are not conducive tosupporting development consistent with local land use regulation.

The following factors are considered in determining lands withcertain “natural resources and limitations”:

1. The property is largely comprised of NYS regulatedwetlands that may provide limitations to appropriatedevelopment.

2. The property is largely comprised of NFIP regulatedfloodplain areas that may provide limitations toappropriate development.

3. The property is largely comprised of soils with “severelimitations” for septic absorption fields that may providelimitations to appropriate development.

4. The property is largely comprised of soils with “severelimitations” for buildings with basements that may providelimitations to appropriate development.


5. The property is largely comprised of soils with a depth togroundwater of less than 6 feet that may providelimitations to appropriate development.

G. The property includes CULTURALLY AND/OR HISTORICALLYVALUABLE areas requiring protection.

The following factors are considered in determining “culturallyand/or historically valuable” land:

1. The property is located within or adjacent to an area notedby the NYS Museum, NYS Parks Recreation and HistoricPreservation, and/or Mohawk Valley Heritage CorridorCommission for historic and/or cultural significance.

2. The property is within or provides a linkage to historiccorridors, such as, but not limited to: Wood Creek, FishCreek, and the NYS Canal System.

7.2 Trailless Areas

Certain areas of the RSP should be designated as Trailless Areasbecause of the sensitivity of their resources. These areas areillustrated in Figure 15. They are generally comprised of wetlands andother Unique Natural Areas discussed in Section 2.2.

7.3 Non-Motorized Trail System

This plan proposes the development of a non-motorized trail systemin the RSP. The trail system is based on the use of existing loggingroads and trails. Specific foot trail locations are not shown at thistime. It is anticipated that such trails would be developed alongpublic and conservancy lands using the existing logging trail system.

Motor vehicle access trails, such as for ATVs, are not consideredappropriate for this area due to the sensitive nature of the plantcommunity and because of the relatively limited area of land. Thesandy soils in the RSP are easily displaced by the tires of motorvehicles. Damage to the trails can occur in a short time. Evidence ofthis soil loss is apparent in numerous locations and has resulted insoil deposition in streams or wetlands. There is not currently a legalATV trail system on lands adjacent to the RSP, consequentlyconnector trails would not be appropriate. There is no assurance thatATV use, if allowed, would not conflict with other public use. Forthese reasons, motorized access does not fit into the overall objectives


for management of the RSP area.

Horses will not be allowed on any designated foot trail in the RSP.The use of horses on NYSDEC lands in the RSP will be allowedconsistent with NYCRR 190.8(n)(2), which allows them anywhereexcept on any designated foot trail unless the designated foot trail isalso signed for horse use. The RSP is simply not envisioned as adestination for horse use, there being facilities at the Otter CreekHorse Trail system near Boonville and Brookfield Trail System southof Utica that provide well developed facilities for recreational horseriding.

Bicycles will be allowed only on designated trails.

The following actions will be required to develop the trail system.

a. Survey and flag trails.

b. Clear brush and obstacles; address erosion and related problems;develop drainage facilities, bridges and other supportconstruction as required.

c. Develop and implement marking system.

d. Discourage use of non-designated trails, particularly those in ornear areas of sensitive natural resources.

e. Develop parking areas.

f. Install signage.

g. Install gates as necessary.

h. Develop partnership(s) with local outdoors and hiking groups forregular clean-up and maintenance patrols.

I. Develop trail map brochure.

Specific recommendations are as follows.

A. IWL Property

1. Pending future acquisitions, create a vehicle access to anoverlook of the bog for persons with disabilities.

2. Increase the size of the parking lot at the existing site orfind an alternate location for parking. Such relocationmay require an additional trail to connect the new


parking area to existing trails. Parking shouldaccommodate space for ten vehicles plus space for abus turn-around.

3. Investigate alternate trail routes to establish trails that arenot subject to flooding. In areas where suitable alternativesare not available, trails should be constructed or modifiedto minimize impacts of fluctuating water levels.Modifications could include bridges, corduroy, boardwalks,turnpikes, causeways, puncheon or other trail buildingtechniques intended specifically for trails in wet areas.

B. NYSDEC and TNC properties

1. Develop access for persons with disabilities to the bognorth of Hogsback Road. Develop a viewing platform withinterpretive signs.

2. Develop a trail loop from the dune trail parking lot to thebog north of Hogsback Road and if feasible make itaccessible to the disabled. A segment with appropriatesignage may be required along Hogsback Road; however,off-road alternatives should be explored.

3. Maintain the string trail in the lupine bed.

4. Close the trail spur to the railroad bed. If this railroadcorridor is ever acquired, this spur could be re-opened.

5. Install a gate on each end of Armstrong/Mason Road.

6. Install a gate with barrier rocks at tax parcel 220.000-2-24.

7. Install two gates on tax parcels 220.000-2-8 and203.000-1-72 on the north and south sides of OswegoRoad.

C. Parking Lots

1. Develop a 2-3 car parking lot for persons with disabilitieson Hogsback Road south of the bog.

2. Expand the parking lot at the dune trail to accommodateten cars and a bus turn-around. Two of the parking spacesshall be for accessible parking.

3. Expand the Wood Creek parking lot to accommodate 10


cars including two accessible parking spaces.

4. Develop a 10 car parking lot on tax parcel 220.000-2-8 onOswego Road. Include two accessible parking spaces.

D. Canoe Access

1. Develop an access road to Wood Creek and a 5-6 carparking lot at the canoe put-in at Rts. 46/49.

2. Develop a 3 car parking lot at the location of the gatewaysign. One parking space shall be accessible.

3. Develop a 5-6 car parking lot with one accessible parkingspace at the canoe take out in the DOT ROW on Rt. 49 andWood Creek or work with private landowners to acquiresufficient land to develop the access.

7.4 Water Access

This plan proposes the development of a public canoe trail on WoodCreek. Assuming that ownership and control difficulties can beovercome, the logical put in is the DOT ROW at the intersection ofWood Creek and Rts. 46/49. The DOT ROW at Rt. 49 should bedeveloped as a takeout point. The following actions are needed.

a. Determine access details and layout

b. Open a travel corridor through selective clearing of brush andstrainers.

c. Develop and install signage.

d. Develop partnership(s) for regular cleanup and maintenancepatrols.

e. Develop map and brochure.

7.5 Vegetation Management

Vegetation management is necessary if the RSP’s pitch pinecommunity is to be maintained and prevented from succeeding to anAppalachian Oak Forest Community. This plan proposes that bothvegetative cutting and fire be assessed.

a. Vegetative Cutting, Scarification and Herbicide Use. A series ofexperiments should be designed in which test plots are cutand/or scarified at varying intensities to allow evaluation of their


effect on desirable communities. The effects of herbicide useshould also be evaluated. The goal of these experiments is todetermine the amount of canopy opening combined with othermechanisms needed to maintain the pitch pine community. Theresults should be compared and then evaluated to determinewhich combination of methods is most effective at maintainingthe pitch pine community.

b. Fire Management. One or more test plots should be selected forfire management. The plot(s) should be of similar size and speciescomposition as that selected for vegetation cutting, scarificationand herbicide use. Properly designed monitoring mechanismsshould be implemented to allow comparison between the plots.

The RSP Management Team will establish a task force anddevelop an emergency fire response plan. The task force will workwith local landowners, fire departments likely to respond to a fireemergency on lands currently under public and conservationownership, and others to put an emergency fire response plan inplace. The plan shall address how best to engage a fire emergencyso private property is not lost; rare, threatened or endangeredspecies and their habitats are not destroyed; fire suppressionstrategies do not inadvertently destroy unique geological landforms (sand dunes) and species/habitat restoration managementinitiatives; and related issues are considered.

c. Forest Management. TNC, IWL and Oneida County shoulddevelop detailed forestry management plans similar to thatdeveloped by the NYSDEC. The NYSDEC’s specific plans are asfollows.

C Manage 334 acres to perpetuate pitch pine either in pure standsor as a component with white pine and hardwoods using evenaged management systems on a 100- to 120-year rotation.Seedbed preparation and control of competing vegetation willmost likely be necessary to ensure successful establishment ofpitch pine. Intermediate treatments on 20-year cutting cycles willbe conducted to maintain healthy crowns and vigorous growthrates. Pitch pine management areas lie outside, but oftenadjacent to NYSDEC regulated wetlands. The regulated 100-footarea adjacent to wetlands will not be included in the areamanaged under the even aged management system. Wetlandboundaries should be reviewed which may result in additionalacreage suitable for management of pitch pine.

C Manage 30 acres for development of wild blue lupine. Tree


cutting and other periodic treatments will be directed atinterrupting the process of natural succession and maintaininga balance of shade and open which is optimal for naturalestablishment, vigorous growth and maximum flowerproduction. Other plant species will also be promoted in theseareas to provide a diversity of nectar plants for the frosted elfinbutterfly and potentially for the Karner blue butterfly.

C Remove non-native tree species, specifically red pine and scotchpine, on 27 acres.

C Manage 1113 acres as protection areas. These protection areaslie primarily within the boundaries of regulated wetlands andinclude open and alder wetlands in various stages ofdevelopment as well as wooded wetlands. Protection areas arerestricted from harvesting due to the sensitivity of the sites andthe inability of the soils to support mechanical equipment.Included in protection areas are the steep lee slopes of the sanddunes which should be maintained in continuous cover toprevent erosion from changing the topography of these uniquegeological features.

C Manage 216 acres for oak, mixed hardwoods and mixedsoftwoods. Manage on 120-year rotations to favor developmentof large diameter trees and a diversity of species whilemaintaining a component of oak. Intermediate treatments shouldbe infrequent and only as necessary to maintain health,vigorous growth and diversity in stand structure.

7.6 Lupine Management

Various activities are needed to manage the blue lupine, as well asrelated nectaring plants, in order to maintain and enhance thefrosted elfin butterfly population and, potentially, allow for theintroduction of the Karner blue butterfly. Four sites of at least fiveacres each should be designated for lupine establishment. The sitesshould be in proximity to one another, or be able to be connected bycorridors. Lupine establishment should follow the protocolestablished for the efforts now underway. This will include closecooperation with volunteers, as well as the establishment ofmonitoring and feedback mechanisms.

7.7 Karner Blue Butterfly Introduction

Should the lupine introduction efforts discussed in ManagementAction 7.6 be successful, this plan advocates the introduction of the


Karner blue butterfly to the RSP. A detailed plan for suchintroduction will need to be developed in cooperation with the USFWSand the NYSDEC Karner Blue Recovery Team should lupineestablishment prove successful.

7.8 Nuisance Wildlife Management

Beaver and other potential nuisance species may be trapped ordestroyed generally only when they pose a nuisance to public trailsand roads or to private property. Wildlife will otherwise be allowed tofunction as part of the natural ecosystem.

7.9 Hunting and Trapping

New York State lands will be subject to State hunting and trappingregulations. The other landowners in the RSP are encouraged toadopt regulations identical to the State’s. To the extent that suchregulations may differ, signage and brochures will be required topublicize the regulations applying to specific properties.

7.10 Red-shouldered Hawk Nest Sites

Concerns that spring turkey hunting will conflict with nesting Red-shouldered Hawks, a species of special concern, warrantconsideration. Input from wildlife biologists suggests that the impacton Red-shouldered Hawks from turkey hunters would not besignificant with the possible exception of nest sites that are in closeproximity to high use areas such as trails. It may be deemed prudentto close appropriate trails during the spring nesting season. A firststep is to identify and inventory nest sites.

7.11 Research Activities

A variety of basic research is needed in the RSP in order tounderstand its natural processes. These needs are outlined in Section5.1 of this plan.

7.12 Motorized Use

This plan supports the ongoing use of the former New York Centraland Hudson Railroad ROW for snowmobile use. Other public motorvehicle use will not be allowed on the managed lands within the RSP.

7.13 Signage

A uniform system of signage based on the signs recently installed atthe Wood Creek Trail entrance should be developed. Similar signs


should be placed at other key locations. Specifically, a gatewat signshould be installed at the intersection of Rt. 49 and Oswego Road. Asimilar format should be followed, providing information about theRSP’s history, natural resources and recreation opportunities. Thesigns should include information linking the RSP with otherresources in the Mohawk Valley Heritage Corridor as well as the ErieCanalway National Heritage Corridor.

7.14 Roadside Cutting

Cutting of roadside vegetation by public agencies should beprohibited within the ROW of the RSP’s designated scenic roads,except where necessary for reasons of health or the habitatmanagement objectives of this plan. Herbicides should not be usedon roadside ROW’s where there is a possibility of drifting ontolupines.

7.15 Roadside Clean-up

Volunteer groups should be enlisted to establish a regular programof roadside clean-ups in the RSP. Law enforcement personnel will berequested to enforce litter laws.

7.16 Property Clean-up

Trash and debris should be removed where they pose a hazard orcreate an aesthetic impact. Clean-up efforts on existing propertiesshould be completed. Surplus buildings should be demolished anddisposed of.

7.17 Wood Creek Historic Corridor

An area 500 feet on each side of Wood Creek should be designated ahistoric corridor. This would not imply any regulatory restriction;rather, it would help publicize the sensitive and important historicnature of this landscape.

7.18 Canal Cut Trail

Initiate discussions with the landowner to develop a short,historically-oriented trail on Wood Creek located just east of itsintersection with Rt. 49. This trail will need to be carefully located toassure that the resource is not damaged. Appropriate signage andinterpretive material will be needed.

7.19 Cultural Resource Investigations


Surveys should be made of the three stream confluences discussedin Section 2.3 and of the Seiferts Corners area to determine if culturalresources are present. If so, such resources should be preserved andpotentially interpreted.

7.20 Mark Boundaries

The boundary lines of new acquisitions should be surveyed andboundary lines should be maintained according to the internalpolicies of the landowners. A uniform system of internal and externalproperty boundary markers to be used by all landowners should becreated and integrated to augment boundary signage of eachlandowner within the RSP. The markers should include the RSP logo.These will complement the NYSDEC’s boundary markers, which willcontinue to be used according to NYSDEC policy. Encroachmentissues should be resolved.

7.21 Education and Publicity

A variety of education and publicity activities should be implemented.These include:

a. Create an RSP page and presence on the world wide web.

b. Create educational brochures for distribution at trailheads andelsewhere.

c. Create a mobile exhibit for use at schools and public events.

d. Work with schools to sponsor regular educational hikes in theRSP.

7.22 Develop Partnerships

A variety of partnerships are essential to the long-term managementof the RSP. These include the following.

a. Partnerships with the owners of the New York Central andHudson railroad bed. The railroad bed provides access to theheart of the RSP. Currently, only snowmobile use is allowed. Byallowing foot and bicycle traffic, much of the interior of the RSPwould be opened to recreational use. The bed would also serve asa major component of the RSP’s future trail system.

b. Partnerships with the State and Federal agencies such as the


Albany Pine Bush Commission. The Albany Pine BushCommission manages a natural area that is very similar to theRSP. Many of the lessons learned by the commission canundoubtedly be applied to the RSP. Forging close ties with thecommission can only aid in the long-term management of theRSP. Other agencies with whom a partnership should be formedinclude the USFWS.

c. Partnerships with environmental, business and outdoorsorganizations and private landowners. Such partnerships areessential to carrying out many of the day-to-day managementtasks in the RSP: trail patrols, maintenance, lupine introduction,wildlife censuses and education are only a the few essential rolesfor these organizations.

d. Partnerships with schools, colleges and educationalorganizations. These partnerships are necessary both for raisingpublic awareness and for carrying out much of the basic researchon the RSP that is still needed.

7.23 Adopt Regulations

The following regulations should be adopted by the NYSDEC withrespect to State-owned land in the RSP. The TNC, IWL and OneidaCounty should adopt similar regulations.

a. Prohibit the discharge of firearms at and within a specifieddistance of the sand dunes trailhead.

b. Prohibit overnight camping within the RSP.

7.24 Development Density

This plan recommends that water and sewer infrastructureextensions in the RSP be limited to those necessary to serve existing needsand that to the extent that such extensions occur they are located alonglegal ROWs for such infrastructure and do not include the capacity forsignificant new development. Residential development should be maintainedat a low density in the RSP to avoid conflicts with sensitive natural areas.Commercial development should be prohibited. These recommendationsshould be incorporated into the development of the new City of RomeComprehensive Plan and existing or new land use regulations.

7.25 Management Structure


This plan recommends that the current RSP management structure,an ad hoc partnership of the public and conservancy landowners andinterested partners, be maintained for the next five years. Thesuccess of this structure in achieving the goals of the plan should bemonitored to determine if it is effective. The management team shoulddevelop a series of objective measures to determine if it is adequatelyachieving its goals. These would likely include:

1. The extent to which the dunes and wetlands which comprise theecologically important parts of the RSP are protected.

2. The extent to which pitch pine habitat is protected and increased.

3. The extent to which the Karner blue and frosted elfin butterfliesare restored and enhanced.

4. The extent to which public access is improved.

5. The extent to which historical and cultural resources areprotected and public access to them improved.

6. The extent to which rules and regulations are enforced and theresources are protected from damage.

7. The extent to which education about and interpretation of theRSP is increased.


GLOSSARY

Appalachian oak-pine forest – An ecological community characterized byoaks and pines in the overstory and shrubs such as blueberry andhuckleberry in the understory. In the RSP, this community occurs on sandysoils.

ATV – All terrain vehicle.

Black spruce tamarack bog – An ecological community characterized bya sphagnum mat with black spruce on the edge and tamarack in theinterior.

Blue lupine – A flowering plant that provides the only food source for thelarval stage of the Karner blue butterfly and the frosted elfin butterfly.

Deed covenant – A restriction or condition in a property deed.

Drainage basin – The entire land area drained by a stream or river.

Easement – The right to make use of a property without owning suchproperty. The use to be allowed may be restricted by the terms of theeasement.

Ecosystem – A functional system which includes the organisms of anatural community together with their environment.

Esker – A land form consisting of a sinuous ridge of stratified glacial sandand gravel.

Glacial till – Unsorted material deposited by a glacier consisting of aheterogeneous mixture of clay, sand, gravel and boulders.

Glacio-lacustrine deposits – Sediments deposited in former lake beds byglaciers.

Hemlock hardwood swamp – An ecological community characterized by amosaic of wetlands with fluctuating water levels in swales between higherelevation sand dunes vegetated with pine barrens or pine oak woods.

Highbush blueberry bog thicket – An ecological community characterizedby wetlands within a mosaic of other wetland and upland communities.

Hummock – A round or conical mound on the surface of the ground.

Hydrogeology – The science dealing with the occurrence and utilization ofground and surface water and its function in modifying the surface of theearth.


Karner blue butterfly – A federally- and New York State-listed endangeredbutterfly species.

Management structure – The entity charged with carrying out therecommendations of this plan.

Management team – The existing RSP Management Team.

Mesic community – Term describing areas with moist, well-drained soils;intermediate between xeric (dry) soils and hydric (wet) soils.

Mycorrhiza – A commonly mutualistic and intimate association betweenthe roots of a plant and a fungus.

Nationwide permit – A permit issued by theCOE that allows a group orclass of activities provided that such activities are carried out in accordancewith pre-determined regulations.

New York State Barge Canal recreationway – A designated area along theNew York State Barge Canal in which recreation activities are encouragedand supported.

Northern hardwood forest – An ecological community characterized by amix of hardwoods in an upland environment.

Ortstein layer – A layer of the soil consisting of cemented organic matterthrough which water, but not plant roots, may pass.

Peat bog – A wetland in which peat has formed under conditions of acidity.

Pine barrens – An ecological community dominated by pitch pine anddeveloped in arid or dry soils.

Pine barrens vernal pool -- An ecological community characterized bywetlands which may include cranberry bushes. This community may beopen or it may have a canopy of red maple, pitch pine and other trees.

Pitch pine blueberry heath barren -- See pitch pine heath barren.

Pitch pine blueberry peat swamp -- An ecological wetland community typedeveloped on sandy soils with a dense and dominant shrub layer.

Pitch pine heath barren -- An ecological community occurring on welldrained sand uplands dominated by pitch pine, with a mix of other tree andshrub species.


Prescribed burns – The use of fire for ecological management purposes.

Red maple hardwood swamp – An ecological community characterized bya red maple overstory in a wetland environment.

Rich hemlock hardwood peat swamp -- An ecological communitycharacterized by a diverse mix of hemlock and hardwoods in a wetlandenvironment.

Sphagnum bog – A wetland in which sphagnum moss dominates thesurface.

Stakeholder – A person with a particular interest in a plan or event.

State-listed rare, threatened or endangered species – A plant or animalwhich is officially considered to be in danger of extirpation in New YorkState.

Transitional open meadows – Areas of meadow or open field locatedbetween different ecological communities.

Unique Natural Area – A site with outstanding environmentalcharacteristics worthy of protection and preservation.

Wetland – An area inundated by water, either seasonally or year round, inwhich plant species have adapted to this condition.

Xeric – Term describing areas with dry, well drained soils.


REFERENCES

Ackley, D. and Raynsford, A. “The Rome Sand Plains.” The Kestral, Volume13, No. 3 (1967).

Allers, R. H. “Geology of the Rome Sand Plains.” Undated paper.

Casey, G. D. and Reynolds, R.J. Hydrogeology of the Stratified-Drift Aquifersin the Rome Area, Oneida County, New York. New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation Water Resources Investigation Report 88-4155(1989).

Chamberlain, J. L. “Small Mammals of the Rome Sand Plains.” Unpublishedpaper (1981).

Fuller, Steven G. Proposal: Stabilization/Restoration of Karner BlueButterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) Habitat in the Rome Sand Plains.(1999).

Gajewski, K. “Late Holocene Climate Changes in Eastern North AmericaEstimated From Pollen Data.” Quaternary Research 29 (1988), 255-262.

Grigore, M. T. and Tramer, E. J. “The Short Term Effect of Fire on Lupinusperennis (L.).” Natural Areas Journal. Vol. 16. No. 1 (1996).

Grundel, R., Pavlovic, N. B., and Sulzman, C. L. (1998a). “Habitat Use bythe Endangered Karner Blue Butterfly in Oak Woodlands: The Influence ofCanopy Cover.” Biological Conservation 85 (1998), 47-53.

Grundel, R., Pavlovic, N. B., and Sulzman, C. L. (1998b). “The Effect ofCanopy Cover and Seasonal Change on Host Plant Quality for theEndangered Karner Blue Butterfly (Lycaeided melissa samuelis).” Oecologia114 (1998), 243-250.

Grundel R. and Pavlovic N. B. “Nectar Plant Selection by the Karner BlueButterfly (Lycaeided melissa samuelis) at the Indiana Dunes NationalLakeshore.” The American Midland Naturalist. Vol. 144, No. 1 (2000).

Kerlinger, Paul. “Report on the Rome Sand Plains Trips.” Undated,unpublished report.

Kurczewski, F. (1998). “Comparison of Sand Nesting Wasps (Hymenoptera)From Two Pine Barrens in Upstate New York.” Entomological News, Vol. 109,No. 4 (1998).

Kurczewski, F. (1999). “Historic and Prehistoric Changes in the Rome, NewYork Pine Barrens.” Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 6, No. 4 (1999).


Kwilosz, J. R. and Knutson, R. L. “Prescribed Fire Management of KarnerBlue Butterfly Habitat at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.” Natural AreasJournal, Vol. 19, No. 2 (1999).

Leimanis, Andra. Vegetation and Fire History of the Rome Sand Plains.Report submitted to the Nature Conservancy Central and Western New Yorkchapters, 1993.

Leimanis, Andra. Ecological Model for the Rome Sand Plains VegetationCommunities: Pitch pine-heath barrens, Pitch pine-blueberry peat swamp, Pinebarrens vernal pond, Black spruce tamarack bog. Report prepared for TheNature Conservancy Central and Western New York Chapter, 1994.

Miller, T.S. Unconsolidated Aquifers in Upstate New York – Finger LakesSheet. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation WaterResources Investigations Report 87-4122 (1988).

New York State Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Task Force. 2001. KarnerBlue Butterfly New York State Recovery Plan.

New York State Recovery Team. 1998. Karner Blue Butterfly New York StateRecovery Plan.

Parker, Lucinda. “Rome Sand Plains Narrative.” Unpublished report, 1992.

Reschke, Carol. Ecological Communities of New York State. NYS NaturalHeritage Program, New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation. Latham, New York (1990).

Russell, Emily W.B. Six Thousand Years of Forest and Fire History in theRome Sand Plains. Report submitted to the Central New York Chapter of theNature Conservancy (1996).

Sleeman, G. Martin, ed. Early Histories and Descriptions of Oneida CountyNew York. Utica, NY: North Country Books, 1999.

Shorey, M. and Chambers, R. “Small Mammal Species Composition of theIzaac Walton League Conservation Area.” Unpublished report, 1995.

Smallidge, Peter J., Leopold, Donald J. and Allen, Craig M. “CommunityCharacteristics and Vegetation Management of Karner Blue Butterfly(Lycaeides melissa samuelis) Habitats on Rights-of-Way in East-Central NewYork, USA.” Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 33 (1996), 1405-1419.

Smallidge, Peter J. and Leopold, Donald J. “Vegetation Management for theMaintenance and Conservation of Butterfly Habitats in Temperate Human-Dominated Landscapes.” Landscape and Urban Planning 38 (1997), 259-


280.

Smith, Gerry. 1995. “Breeding Bird Transects in the Rome Sand Plains.”Unpublished memorandum.

Stanton, Edward. Report on the Insect Fauna of the Rome Sand Plains: AnEcological Investigation to Determine Pre-European Settlement Vegetation.Report Prepared for the Central and Western New York Chapter of theNature Conservancy, 1996.

St. Hilaire, Lisa and Leimanis, Andra. Rome Sand Plains Community Map.Report prepared for The Nature Conservancy Central and Western New YorkChapter, 1995.

Webster, Dwight A. “Early History of the Atlantic Salmon in New York.”New York Fish and Game Journal, Vol. 29, No. 1 (1982).

Documents

Rome Sand Plains Final Unit Management PlanRome Sand Plains Consolidated Management Plan Page 4 3. Introduce the Karner blue butterfly if lupines are successfully established. 4. Manage